17-40: Is it really better than the 18-55 ?

[kanellopoulos]

I am reading all around that the 17-40 is an excellent sharp lens. <br>

So, I picked up a used one from a store and went home for some testing

<br>

with my 20D (with tripod). <br>

Although it is true that the 17-40 is much better built and has a lot<br>

less CA, I found out that it was MUCH softer than the 18-55 at the

corners! <br>

Can this be typical? Do you think the used lens was damaged? In the

center<br>

of the frame the 17-40 was indeed sharper and had better contrast, but

at the<br>

edges the 18-55 out-performed it! I mainly shoot landscapes at around

f8.<br>

So, is it worth the upgrade? Or, I could buy both the Tokina 17/3.5

and the <br>

Canon 35/2.0 and also save money and have faster lenses and have a

choice<br>

what to carry (also have the 24/2.8)...

[PuppyDigs]

Probably there is a good reason the former owner sold his EF 17-40 4L USM! I have one

and it's pretty dad burn sharp edge to edge, comparing closely to my wide primes, e.g., EF

24 2.8 and EF 35 2.0. Nevertheless, lemons can and do happen. Lenses are like musical

instrument. Most are okay, a few are great and a few are crap. I had an EF 70-200 4L USM

that was crap, very

soft on only the left side of the frame. Most everyone else had a good one and raved about

what a great telezoom it was.

[yakim_peled1]

I suggest to try another copy of the 17-40/4 and/or to think if it's possible that something needs improvement in your testing technique.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jon_austin]

Yes, it really is better! You got a bum (or abused) copy. Take it back immediately. If you can't find another used one in good condition, save up for a new one. If you really want to produce good images in this focal length range (and don't want to switch to primes) it's worth the money!

[ericpetersonphoto]

You got a baddddd copy. I have both lenses, You can see a huge difference in my copies. The only dilema I have with the 18-55 is how far to throw it down the street. I used it last week and it was horrific. I have used the 18-55 3 times now and I cant see how people can say its a good lens, I am confused? Its just like all the crappy zoomes canon sells with its film cameras. You did mention the 24 2.8 and 35 2.0 both are amazing, if you dont need a zoom, buy those 2 and the 50 1.8 and will be very happy.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I don't have both lenses. I have the 17-40, and some other lenses, including the 28-135. The general opinion is that the 18-55 is good for a kit lens but not as good as the better consumer-grade lenses like the 28-105 and 28-135 (I've had both, and my 28-135 was better than my 28-105). My 28-135 is a pretty good lens. My 17-40 is superior to my 28-135, which should make it much better than the 18-55.</p>

 

<p>I agree with the others; occasionally Canon makes a lemon, and that's why the previous owner dumped this one.</p>

[ericpetersonphoto]

Camera lesson # 1034. You think I would learn my Lesson. I hate to admit this. But, I have owned the 35-80 kit, 28-80 and 28-90. They sucked fish, every last one, all just as bad, could have used a disposable. Of course most people never notice because they dont make anything larger than a 4*6. These lens dont start showing thier colors until you start to enlarge. I also had the 28-135 until just a few weeks ago when I replaced it with a 28-75 2.8 Tamron. The 28-135 was very good until about 120mm then it was bad. The point of all this is ? The 17-40 you got was a bad one. I have the 17-40 and its great at all ends. The best use for the 18-55 is for snap shooters or a paper weight.

[jim_mueller2]

::: it was horrific::::

 

Actually, I also own the 18-55 and find to be fairly good! It's really not a bad lens at all.

[ericpetersonphoto]

My copy is on the bad side. Have you tried to enlarge anything with yours? Just curious.

[tommyinca]

The 18-55's corner is not known to be it's strongest suit. As other said, your 17-40 may have problem. IMHO, the 18-55 is not a bad lens. It is either horrific nor should it be used in a 3 steps quick pass.<div></div>

[dogbert]

If you shoot mainly at f8 you should see little difference in any lenses. Expensive lenses' main adavantages are sharpness wide open, faster apertures as applicable, and better build (USM, non rotating front elements). Get the 50f1.8 for $75. Stop it down to f8 and put it on a tripod. This is pretty much what can be achieved with the most expensive lenses. This should stop you wondering how much of an optical imporvement you will get by shifting to L lenses.