camilla Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 So I did put my camera on a tripod and shot a bookcase at home (Oh howutterly boring!) to check my new 17-40 against my old 18-55 EF-S lens.As you could see in my post a couple of days ago I was not at allimpressed with my 17-40 and now I suspect it's not functioningproperly. It's not sharper than the 18-55 with both at their widestsetting, and I tried this at all apertures. Are they really thatclose, or is there something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 20, 2004 Author Share Posted September 20, 2004 Second crop, corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Camilla, Sounds like you need to just return your 17-40 for a new sample or just be happy with the 18-55 and the almost $700 savings from not keeping the 17-40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Or just give your dealer another $700 - that should make the images look a lot sharper :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Hi Camilla, Maybe it's not that you got a bad 17-40, perhaps you just got a really good 18-55! Bottom line, if you're not happy with it, I wouldn't keep it. I really like mine. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 20, 2004 Author Share Posted September 20, 2004 I've already settled for having a good 18-55 :) I won't keep the 17-40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latham_portous Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 It's strange how the corner sharpness of the 18-55 is better than the 17-40. This really seems strange, unless you have a slightly out of focus shot with the 17-40 here. I really don't know what is going on! I will test mine too now, I am curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedding-photography-denver Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Camilla, nothing is wrong, the 17-40 is not a brilliant example of canons lense quality (although it is very good) but you do (from what I see in those tests) have an exeptional 18-55. Mine never looked that good at any F stop. I have just got a 16-35/2.8 and am reasonably pleased but I still don't think these zooms are better than primes, FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy_peterson Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Keep in mind that the extra $$ for the 17-40 pays for more than just image quality. I bought a DRebel at the same time a good friend of mine bought his. I happened to have the money for a 17-40, he did not. He takes many good pictures with his lens, but longs for the USM speed, constant aperture, manual focus ring, distance scale, and build quality of the "L" lens. Will he rush out and replace his 18-55? Probably not. He's more likely to buy a 70-200 f4L or 100 f2.8 macro. Do you have all the focal lengths you want? Perhaps your 17-40 is a bad copy. Perhaps your 18-55 is a great copy. Only you can decide if ALL the qualities of the 17-40 together are worth the additional $600-- or is there another lens you might like instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 My EFS 18-55 performs so well that I spend the 17-40/4L upgrade money on a EF24/2.8 EF35/2.0 EF50/1.8 MKI and I still use the 18-55 as a 18-24mm f5.6. I am not so lucky, my EFS doesn't turn good until f5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 21, 2004 Author Share Posted September 21, 2004 Actually I'm glad I could see for myself that the difference in image quality isn't that huge. The biggest difference is colour, which is a bit nicer with the 17-40. I too realise that it's not only image quality I pay for when getting the 17-40, but now I will spend my money on something wider instead. I already have 20 and 24mm primes, so the zoom was mostly for the few millimeters on the wide end, and convenience in some situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Camilla - How does the 17-40mm compare with your 24mm prime at 24mm? I'd be curious to see since I'm thinking about adding a 17-40mm to potentially replace my Canon 24mm f/2.8. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 21, 2004 Author Share Posted September 21, 2004 Sheldon! I recently traded my Canon 24/2.8 for a Sigma 24/1.8 to get better low light opportunities. However, from just using the two 24mm lenses,I'd say they are about equally sharp. I did do the bookshelf shoot again today with the 17-40 at 24mm and my Sigma 24mm to see if I could help you. I found the 17-40 soft at 24mm and f4, but the Sigma was almost as soft. At f8 both were sharp, and the 17-40 no worse than the prime as you can see for yourself. I focused manually with both lenses. This of course is only indoor shots of a bookshelf less than a meter away. I couldn't say how they would perform side by side in different light outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 21, 2004 Author Share Posted September 21, 2004 corner of above image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 21, 2004 Author Share Posted September 21, 2004 oh, here is the corner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Did you shoot them at 18mm ? Then it's a great example of _how_ different one 18-55 from others. Mine is not that sharp be far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 22, 2004 Author Share Posted September 22, 2004 The comparision between my 17-40 and 18-55 was done at the widest setting on both lenses. 17mm and 18mm respectively. I have found that my 17-40 performed best at the long end where it is very sharp, wide open. That's not very useful for me though, as I have another lens covering that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Thanks Camilla - I think that the 17-40mm will likely be the lens for me. Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwand Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I just did some tests of my 18-55 and 17-40, and I have to say that I'm somewhat disappointed with the results. Though the 17-40 is sharper, and I might also say significantly so, I'm disppointed that it's not more so. My tests were done outdoors under somewhat hazy conditions with objects hundreds of meters away. I used a 20D with a lot of care in focusing on a tripod with timer & MLU at f/8 and f/11. I noticed slight sharpness and colour improvements with the 17-40, particularly at 40, and that chromatic abberation / "purple" fringing are present on both on some objects, but much more pronounced on the 18-55. The colour of the edges changes between the lenses, and is much more noticable on the 18-55. I don't think that this was the result of changing lighting, but that is possible. I wasn't expecting this at the time of shooting so didn't pay careful attention. I recommend doing your own tests to check this out. I'll re-do my tests at some point. Oh, and the 50 1.8 II was still clearly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40acer Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 You cant compare lenses just like this. Any lense will be sharp if you know how to focus it perfectly. Sharpness depends on your eyes and hands...18-55 is not advisable to shoot weddings in the fistplace anyway... that is why I got 17-40L for my 20D. It's sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camilla Posted September 22, 2004 Author Share Posted September 22, 2004 Well, I also found the 17-40 sharper than my 18-55, but not superior enough to be worth the price I paid... (more expensive in Europe). So, I'm already rid of mine, planning to try out the 10-22 instead when it becomes available. And, Mad Wand, my favourite lens is my 50/1.4 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 When you consider a third to half the price of a lens is retail markup, then allow for the cost of the considerably more expensive build of the 17-40L, metal body, more glass, weather proofing gaskets, USM and shorter productions runs (which equate to higher unit costs), there is probably not a lot left over to be spent on better optics - maybe $100 or even less goes into better optics compared with the EF-S. I guess my point is I think it is reasonably safe to assume the price difference between the EF-S and the 17-40 L does not mean an extra $550 is going into the optics, maybe more like $100. Also it seems like short back focus has destinct advantages in producing reasonably good performing wideangle lens at relatively low cost, compared with conventional 35 mm designs. Remeber the 17-40L is designed to be an ultra wide angle on a 35 mm camera. These are expensive to produce. The equivalent EF-S in APS C format is the 10-22, which costs $800. So using the 17-40 L as a normal lens on a 10D, instead of the EF-S, is basically using an ultra-wide angle from a different format that is difficult to design well as a normal lens. If you follow my convoluted thinking I guess it is not that suprising that the 17-40L doesn't blow the EF-S 18-55 out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40acer Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 considering the price? I can pay off my 17-40 L lense in one day wedding photography session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now