You must be remember when I was a younger member of Nikonians, I received a lot of criticism for comparing lenses based on the same subject – part of the face, including an eye, an eyebrow, lashes, nose, skin (skin hair). This way, with the lens is wide open and close-up distances is AF “misses” one part of the face – something else will be in focus and well defined to see and compare. I usually take series of pictures (10-15) and compare resolution on my PS at 1:1 magnification. FL is variable, but three other parameters are always constant 1. Aperture is wide opened (semi-constant, depending on a lens. 2. Shutter speed is /320. 3. ISO is 100. Manual mode and not bright light in the room, monopod, exposure is adjusted by Speedlight, VR is Normal and ON, if applicable. This setup allow me to judge if ii like the lens or not to start with, and then I’m trying to adapt to the lens, if it’s necessary.
I will do a test outside today to see if I missed something last evening. On my books 17-55 is suppose to be superb for party/weddings setup with a lot of half-length portraits taken and I was just not impessed with what I saw yesterday from my tests. And I just wanted to hear other’s opinion if comparing 17-55 PRO-Glass to Big-Kings PRO-Glass is comparing apples and oranges.
I think this can qualify. The first one is strait conversion from NEF, the second one with sharpening applied. The result image after sharpening is more than satisfactory to me. But i would get the same quality results strait out of 70-200 VRII without PP. That’s why I wanted to look for other opinion about 17-55 in general and my copy in particular.