Disappointed

[Jack Dawe]

Be gentle with me. This really is a case of all the gear and no idea, but I'm determined to learn.

I've just acquired a Canon EOS D40 with the EFS 17-85mm f.4-5.6 IS lens. It's my first DSLR, so I'm right at the bottom of a steep learning curve. I've been out and about a bit over the weekend snapping everything in sight, just to get the feel of the thing. I've not really ventured beyond the basic shooting modes yet.

I was never expecting a zoom lens to perform as sharply as a prime one. but I have to admit to being rather dismayed by the results I have had so far. The 85mm end of the lens seems OK. The photos, while not exactly razor sharp, are at least sharp enough and pleasing enough to view. At the wide angle 17mm end, however, the photos are very blurred and sharp edges often show a really disconcerting amount of colour fringing. I attach unedited crops from two photos of the same subject at the two different extremes of magnifications to show what I mean. They were both taken with auto-focus and image-stabilising enabled (I am allowing the auto-focus to do its job).

I thought at first that perhaps the problem was camera shake, but I have tried 17mm shots on a tripod using the self-timer and the results are no better.

Have I got a duff lens here or (more likely) is it just the user that is duff? What am I doing wrong?

[a.dancy]

Though I am not qualified to say, given what you have said, it seems you have a duff lens. I can only assume that it is not pulling in straight on the axis or one or more lenses are not accurately alligned. I suggest you take it back and get it looked at or replaced IMHO.

[Tannin]

The CA is probably normal. I don't own a 17-85 but it has a very bad reputation for CA. The blurriness, however, is a different matter. One thing that I would certainly check before taking it back is focus mode.

Autofocus systems are designed to select (in most cases) the closest object under any of the focus points. With that scene you show, at 86mm, the closest thing under a focus point will be a long way away - the houses, perhaps. But at 17mm, the lowest autofocus point will be over some grass or bushes or something not far in front of your feet.

If you have the focus point selection set to AUTO, with a scene like this one, you will get exactly what you see: sharp at 85mm (because it is focusing on far-away things; blurry at 17mm (because it is focusing on something close to you, but the centre of interest nevertheless remains far away .... and blurry).

So try repeating the test with the focus set to centre point only (or manual focus f you prefer). You may have a duff lens, but try this first. Good luck!

[Cashie]

As Tannin says try it with AF off & center focus point AF on, if it is still the same take it back. I had the same problem with my first 40D but mine was a problem with the body it's self, took it back now everything is fine.

[Geoff Brown]

Take it in for a check up - my 17 - 85 has never produced blurry images like yours seems to be doing.

[Jack Dawe]

Thanks a million for the advice, folks. Very much appreciated. I have tried the advice given by Tannin and Cashie. I put the camera on the "P" setting and set the AF to the central point only. I also jammed the camera against a hard surface to prevent shake. The result is certainly improved, but - well I don't know - it still seems a little soft to me. What do you think of the three more crops below (original size)? All are at 17mm. Is this the level of sharpness you would expect with this lens?

In case it helps, the focus point in each pic was on the following:

1) the burglar alarm - about 50 yards away
2) the car - also about 50 yards
3) the pink house - about 100 yards

[davem]

Either you've got a very poor 17-85 or the AF on your 40D is way out (or both!).

I bought a 100-400 L last year and was gutted by the poor quality of the results compared with teh 75-300 I had been using. I sent the whole lot off to Canon (20D, 100-400 and 17-85) and they calibrated the lenses against the body (or adjusted the body's AF according to the service sheet).

Result?

MUCH better and the ability to use the 100-400 up at the top end with very little loss of sharpness.

Presuming they're both still under warranty get them back to Canon Elstree service dept for calibration / examination.

HTH

Dave.

[JohnZ]

Although I have little, make that no, experience with the particular lens you are using I don`t believe that you are going to get much better results from it.
In the first shot it looks like the focus is on the windows and they look like they are in focus.
Mind you have you done any pp`ing on these shots ? It is amazing what one dab of sharpen can do to an image. If they have been sharpened ........take it back !
I will try and dig out the one shot that I have taken with that lens and post it tomorrow.

[Maine Flaim]

I have also just recently purchased the Canon 40D with two lens' one of which is the 17-85mm IS that is the focus of this discussion. I haven't done a lot of shooting with it because I've been using the 70-300mm IS to shoot birds, but I have used it enough to say I haven't had any problems with it. I am also on the bottom of the steep learning curve and have only recently been moving into the "creative zones" with the 40D. I've attached a picture I took just after getting my camera. There is a large pond with a fountain in the foreground and a parade (literally) of people carrying a huge rainbow flag in the background. I took the photo on full auto with the images stabilizer on at 17mm. It was my first such shot with this camera and lens and I think it looks pretty good. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. I hope you can sort it all out and get out shooting.

[fugl]

I agree with JohnZ--the shots look fine to me (that is, assuming they are straight out of the camera). As he says, sharpen them up a little in Photoshop or whatever and then see how they look

[Cashie]

Jack,

This is your first picture with one pass of sharpening in photoshop, but dont forget I'm shapening a small resized file, you could do this in camera in picture styles.


Looking at this I would say your 40D is fine & the lens you have is average, see if you can borrow a L series lens for a couple of shots & see the difference.
I dont think you will be disappointed.

[paul goode]

I assume the 17mm shots are big crops from the original image. I just tried to replicate one of the shots but from fifty yards away the car is tiny in the image.
What were the camera settings (aperture, shutter speed, iso and picture style)?

[davem]

In case it helps, the focus point in each pic was on the following:

1) the burglar alarm - about 50 yards away
2) the car - also about 50 yards
3) the pink house - about 100 yards

OK, what's been said may be valid but I still suspect that if you were using your centre focus point ONLY and were focussed on the burglar alarm then something's wrong with one of or both bits of your kit.

Try mounting the camera/lens on a tripod, turn IS off, and using the same zoom setting for each take a series of photos of objects at greater distances. This was diagnostic in my finding that my AF was back-focussing by anything from 4" to about 20 yards....:C

Repeat the exercise at different zoom settings and different apertures to get a fuller test.

OK it'll take a while but if you do need to send the stuff off, pop the images on a pen drive and Canon immediately have evidence of what it's not doing right.

[Jack Dawe]

Mind you have you done any pp`ing on these shots ? It is amazing what one dab of sharpen can do to an image.
The only bit of touching up I did was to the pink house, where I upped the brightness and contrast somewhat because the pic was too dark. Otherwise I did nothing - no sharpening, unsharp mask or other messing about - because I wanted to show what the lens was doing (or not doing) focus-wise.

I assume the 17mm shots are big crops from the original image. I just tried to replicate one of the shots but from fifty yards away the car is tiny in the image.
What were the camera settings (aperture, shutter speed, iso and picture style)?
Yes, they're just crops out of the original images. I couldn't post the full-sized pics and didn't want to resize them since that would have downgraded the images. So I just cut and pasted a portion of each as is (except that I lightened the pink house as mentioned). So the only loss over the original would have been when I saved the copy - and I think (hope) that would have been insignificant to all intents and purposes.

Yes, the car was fairly small in the original (but the distance may perhaps have been nearer 40 yards - I find distances hard to judge).

EXIF data on this shot:
Shutter speed: 1/80
Aperture: F6.3
ISO: 400
Picture style: standard

Try mounting the camera/lens on a tripod, turn IS off, and using the same zoom setting for each take a series of photos of objects at greater distances. This was diagnostic in my finding that my AF was back-focussing by anything from 4" to about 20 yards....:C

Repeat the exercise at different zoom settings and different apertures to get a fuller test.
Thanks for this tip. I'll do this. But - and please excuse me being dense because I really am a complete novice at this - what exactly is it that I'm looking for and what is "back-focussing"?

Thanks again, everyone for your input.

[paul goode]

I don't think there is too much wrong with the lens. The image I used to replicate your shot of the car is a bit better but I had a faster shutter speed, more DOF and a lower iso. Allowing for the size of the crop and the poor light with the lens at its widest focal length I think things are OK.
The lens does suffer from a bit of CA (as do many to be honest)and a chunk of barrel distortion but if you shoot RAW these are pretty well a one click fix in DPP.
A bit of judicious pp'ing is pretty well essential with DSLR's. You may find you will get better results by changing the picture style to faithful and then do the pp'ing in photoshop elements or an equivalent.

[Jack Dawe]

Thanks for that, Paul. I've also had some great assistance via PM from a very helpful chap and he thinks the lens is OK too, so my mind's at ease now.

I tried shooting some raw shots this evening and the differences from jpg, though slight, were quite noticeable enough. It's raw for me from now on!

Up to now I've always used an old public domain version of PaintShop Pro (v.5.00) and it's served me very well for touching up my old Powershot A530 pics. I guess when my pocket's recovered I'll have to treat myself to something a bt more sophisticated. |=)|

[tdodd]

I managed perfectly well with DPP for many months before Lightroom came to market. I now use Lightroom for image management but I actually prefer the results from DPP for my raw conversions. I'll only use Lightroom to convert if I need to use a feature that is missing in DPP. If I shoot my images well then DPP has all I need. I have Photoshop CS3 as well, but I very very rarely use it.

Since DPP is free with your camera there is no harm in giving it a go. Just make sure you download and install the latest version from Canon's website.

I've heard good things about Raw Therapee (free) - http://www.rawtherapee.com/ - but never used it myself.

[mav12]

i have the same lens and a 40d i am happy with the lens it is quite sharp
since i have had the 40 d i have been using dpp which comes with the camera i use it quite a lot for sharpening
and find it as good as photoshop elements
thing to remember is with a dslr shooting raw the images will be slightly soft out of the camera and do require some pp

[JohnZ]

Found a couple of shots taken with the 17-85. They are however only JPEGS.
Not too bad I don`t think but do not stand up to the pixel peepers !
I took these shots because the bloke who lent me the lens told me his Dad was on the boat.

[tdodd]

There's blog here - http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/ - with some lovely images shot with a 20D and 17-85 lens. Check out the entries entitled....

"Easy Afternoon"
"Dancing In The Sunset"

Maybe there are others, but these caught my eye.