17-55 canon lens

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I've been unhappy with my 70d for a while because the video was soft even when in focus. Turns out it wasn't the camera it was the lens. I'll have to do some more tests but it happens at its widest 17mm even with the aperture at 5.6

Anyone own this lens and experience what I'm talking about? I don't really know what to do because its such a work horse for a solo shooter constantly changing angle of view. Its fast and covers essential angles of view, image stabilization , fast quiet focus... Not sure what other alternative zoom lens I can turn to that's relatively sharp.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Hi Pete i have used the 70d and same lens for three years without hesitation i put it on my 80d with same great results. I have the tamron 24-70 and that is very good and can be used full frame also. I use John hopes lightform c and this gave me better results than the pro-lost or a flat neutral style. I found this was a reason for a little softness on the 70d. Steve

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I think I'm already using Lightform but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm trying to determine if the 17-55 is naturally soft on the wide end or if I have a bad copy. I feel like I need a zoom with at least 17mm on the wide end for a crop 1.6 for interior event work. So I'm not keen on the lens you suggested.

I recently got a $150 pancake lens and at the same settings there was a big difference. I know primes are sharper but this is ridiculous. I can post some stills

[Steve Bleasdale]

Mm my copy seems sharp at 17 mm, i have the 10-18 f4/5/6 is stm and that is good at the 10 mm end, but not good for everything else. I only use that for wide shots and say wide time lapse. steve

[Dan Brockett]

Its your lens. I have the 17-55 and just used it for a doc shoot in South America. I recall one particular shot, a lock off of a band in the studio at 17mm, the musicians are arranged in a circle, facing each other. Everyone loved that shot, we all looked at it on the big screen in the edit bay and everything is razor sharp.

[Chris Hurd]

I concur, must be an issue with your particular lens.

The 17-55 is practically "L series" except that it's EF-S. Should be tack sharp at full wide.

[Chris Hurd]

Pete how much Canon gear do you own? You might qualify for membership in CPS:

Canon Professional Services - Homepage

That way you can quickly get a clean & check on that lens, and repair if necessary.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Edit: I'll have to check that out Chris. You think it's worth repairing?

I've attached unaltered screen grabs of 24mm and the 17-55mm. Not only is it soft the blacks are really black.

[Gary Huff]

First, you're comparing a zoom to a prime. Second, you're holding the camera in the image of yourself, so I have no idea if motion blur is an issue on that shot. This is not the best way to provide sample images for purposes of contrasting.

I have the 17-55 and it's currently my go-to lens.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I agree it's not the best test I'll do a better one when I get the time, but you can see that it's consistently soft, the house photo. both we're shot on a steadycam and watching the video its soft all the time.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

both we're shot on a steadycam and watching the video its soft all the time.

Let's ditch the steady cam, set the 17-55 to f/4, and compare it with another zoom instead of a prime.

[Jay Massengill]

Do you have a protective filter on the 17-55? When I got my lens I also got a $90 protective filter but it was noticeably harming the image so I removed it and I've just been careful with the bare lens ever since.
If I was shooting something risky I'd probably put the protective filter back on and just add a fair amount of sharpening. In the meantime I'm happy with the lens at all lengths and I've had it at least 8 years now.
I have a Sigma 17-70 with the opposite problem from you. Great at 17mm, softer at 70mm.