Jump to content

Just a comparation between EF 17-40/F4 and the Ef 18-55/3.5-5.6


Xinca

Recommended Posts

Just a simple test. Hopfully it is useful for someone.

Both at 24 ,F4,1/850s.

The 17-40/F4 is mounted on 10D and the 18-55 is mounted on the rebel xt.

I use M mode and shoot RAW format.

The photo is 100% crop with out any adjustment except the photo come

out from rebel xt is resize to the same size as the other one.

 

For me the result is clear:

The EF 17-40 is worth it's price!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Alex, thanks for your effort but I think a proper comparison should be done with the same camera used for both lenses, and at several different aperture values, not just wide-open.

 

The cheapy 18-55 will clearly be outperformed at F4, but I doubt if the difference is that noticeable at F8, for example.

 

Another point to consider is that the L is 10 times more expensive than the kit lens - personally I'd expect more of a quality improvement from the pricier lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gediminas P: If someone always want to use the lens at F8 I really do not think he need any good lens. I want to the F4 with 17-40/F4 because I need it.

I got the EF 17-40/F4 with 600US$ and the 18-55 maybe worth 100US$ so it is only 6 times expensive.

My point is if someone want to buy the EOS rebel XT or 20D maybe he should buy the body only and add 500$ to buy the EF 17-40.

 

Sheldon Hambrick: For my understanding if I make a big photo smaller the photo should be better. Mabybe I was worng.

 

Anyway I try test the both lens on rebel xt again later and post the result.

 

Tks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

please remember that the 17-40 is:

 

a) going to last you as long as you have the canon DSLR system (note it's not EF-S, but full frame - I have blast with it on a film SLR if I really want the wide angle shot. Can't wait for a reasonable FF DSLR though)

 

b) it's a joy to use. Feels good. My 18-55 was OK, but this 17-40 isismply a muc nicer lens to have.

 

All the best

 

DAmian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless wether this is an 'irellevant' test to some it would still be a*VERY* usefull test for others. Many potential buyers would be interested in HOW MUCH BETTER the 17-40 was (and therefore is it worth the extra $).

<P>Nice work Alex but i'm afraid the resizing thing really is a huge problem -bad enough to completely invalidate the results.Only pure 100% crops will do.ANY resizing -either up or down- absolutally massacres sharpness.

<P>Also if the 18-55 pic was taken on a film camera then the results are null and void anyway.Not because of differences between film and digital (allthough they are a strong factor) but simply because the film has to be scanned...and scanning is generally a very dodgy proposition when compared to digital capture.

 

<P>Thanks for the effort though! :)

<BR>Any chance you could do the test again using both lenses on the 10D?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WIll do it again but only on the rebel xt - because the EFS lens can not be mount to 10D.

The reason I did this test is actually I want to know how much better the L compare to the the most cheap lens. So I can know when I should use the cheap one and when I should use the L. You know sometime it is now worth to use the L.

 

Maybe the next test will be in this weekend because I also want to test the color. I have to find some place which I can test the detail and color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...