What's Hot: Improved IS and distortion control.
What's Not:Average sharpness, macro, and edge falloff performances.
Who it's for: Midlevel shooters seeking a wider zoom.
|
|
|
|
Introduced last year, this extrawide zoom built for Canons with APS-C-sized sensors makes an attractive utility lens for the new EOS 60D or can serve as a wider, longer alternative to the Rebel kit lens. Canon’s widest EF-S zoom with image stabilization, it mirrors Nikon’s 16–85mm VR zoom and replaces Canon’s older 17–85mm IS.
A 24–136mm full-frame equivalent, it has a pro-grade feel—by Rebel standards it’s slightly large and heavy, weighing nearly 20 percent more than the lens it replaces. It takes a larger filter than usual in this class.
Switches are well-marked and flush with the barrel—it’s almost impossible to change settings by accident. The well-damped zoom and focusing rings turned with less slop than Rebel kit lenses. But the distance scale is hard to read: close to the mount, hidden by the prism housing, behind plastic, and often in shadow. It doesn’t help that feet are marked in dark green.
On the optical bench in our Test Lab, the lens produced uniformly Excellent-range SQF numbers for sharpness and contrast, but performed slightly less well than the 17–85mm it replaces—the price of the wider angle of view.
Better, in our DxO Analyzer 3.2 distortion tests, its Visible barreling at 15mm (0.55%) handily trumped the earlier Canon and comparable Nikon, both of which had Very Visible barrel distortion (1.25%) at their widest focal lengths.
Edge falloff and magnification were average for the class. Similar Nikon and Sony zooms get to 1:3.8 (beating the Canon’s 1:4.1), but this lens has slightly less falloff.
Then there’s image stabilization. In our DxO tests, three shooters gained an average of 2 to 3 stops of handholding with IS engaged. This is a sharp, relatively distortion-free lens with nice build and handling, near-silent AF, and generous zoom reach. Not just enthusiasts but pro event shooters may cotton to this wide-reaching stabilized zoom, too.
Thats it. I'm saying something. Now this is just my opinion and I'm sorry if it comes off a bit rude, but its Friday and I'm fired up.
I don't care how much a lens weighs. I'm pretty sure most humans can get a good idea just by the picture or even holding it. Also,The last thing I want to see on a lens test is a chart. "subjective quality factor" yawnnnnnnnnn.
I appreciate the enthusiasm and your dedication to the research but one thing I'd love to see is some PHOTOS. A gallery of photos taken with the lens. I don't think that is a wild expectation.
You're probably tired of hearing this, or similar, but your testing methodology seriously needs to be revised. EVERY other test upon this lens by respected review sites places it miles ahead of the mediocre 17-85, particularly in terms of sharpness. (that's at every focal length, and at every aperture). They can't all be wildly yet consistently wrong, and you right on the money.
I agree with Jim McDermott. Every other reliable test site has got the exact opposite result when testing this lens and comparing to 17-85. Perhaps Popphoto should redo this test and yes, possibly revise testing methods.
The PopPhoto lens tests are designed to correlate subjective and objective measurement and were created with the help of Dr. Edward Granger, one of the most important imaging scientists of the era.
Other testers don't use the same methods, so their results won't match the PopPhoto results. But what PopPhoto does offer is consistency. Lenses are all tested the same way, so the results are comparable between lenses. But it all comes down to personal experience. On your camera with your subjects, whose results better match what you see in your finished pictures?
Another really crap review for a really objective review check out http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=220 one of the many better reviews on-line.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Thats it. I'm saying something. Now this is just my opinion and I'm sorry if it comes off a bit rude, but its Friday and I'm fired up.
I don't care how much a lens weighs. I'm pretty sure most humans can get a good idea just by the picture or even holding it. Also,The last thing I want to see on a lens test is a chart. "subjective quality factor" yawnnnnnnnnn.
I appreciate the enthusiasm and your dedication to the research but one thing I'd love to see is some PHOTOS. A gallery of photos taken with the lens. I don't think that is a wild expectation.
You're probably tired of hearing this, or similar, but your testing methodology seriously needs to be revised. EVERY other test upon this lens by respected review sites places it miles ahead of the mediocre 17-85, particularly in terms of sharpness. (that's at every focal length, and at every aperture). They can't all be wildly yet consistently wrong, and you right on the money.
I agree with Jim McDermott. Every other reliable test site has got the exact opposite result when testing this lens and comparing to 17-85. Perhaps Popphoto should redo this test and yes, possibly revise testing methods.
The PopPhoto lens tests are designed to correlate subjective and objective measurement and were created with the help of Dr. Edward Granger, one of the most important imaging scientists of the era.
Other testers don't use the same methods, so their results won't match the PopPhoto results. But what PopPhoto does offer is consistency. Lenses are all tested the same way, so the results are comparable between lenses. But it all comes down to personal experience. On your camera with your subjects, whose results better match what you see in your finished pictures?
Another really crap review for a really objective review check out http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=220 one of the many better reviews on-line.