At 12:23 PM +1300 1/17/06, David Mitchell wrote:
On 1/17/06, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, on an EOS 20D body. I will have to go back to look at the images.
Did you test the 28-135 on a 20D as well? I think what Ken was
suggesting was comparing the 17-85 on a 1.6 crop to the 28-135 on FF,
thus getting very close field of view, and perhaps a more direct
comparison. I would also be interested in the results of this
comparison.
Regards
David
I had both at the same time for a little while. On a 1.6x camera the
28-135 didn't make much sense to me, so I sold it, even though I knew
that I would be getting a FF camera. Fortunately the 24-105 came out
when the 5D did.
The performance of the 17-85 and 28-135 is not very different; the
17-85 has very slightly higher performance w.r.t. distortion,
vignetting, chromatic aberration, resolution and it also has slightly
better IS performance. Compared to the (6) prime lenses I have in
this range, the 17-85 does quite well, but in the end is not up to
any of them which is as expected. The 24-105 is better, but again not
quite up to the primes. The 24-105 on the 5D is definitely better
than the 17-85 on the 20D, but this is hardly unexpected; a $4500
combination vs. a combination that costs less than half as much.
The one area in which the 17-85 is poor is in close up performance.
The 60 is hugely better, and is all in all an outstanding lens by any
measure.
In the end I am very pleased with the 17-85 as a walk around lens,
and the only thing I would like better is a 15-75/4 IS (equivalent to
the 24-105) that would not be any larger than the 17-85.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
