Difference in sharpness between 18-55 and 17-55 2.8

[dan_k6]

Just curious to know if you would see a difference in the quality of your prints

between an 18-55 and 17-55 2.8

 

Just because the 17-55 is faster, is it necessarily better? I've heard Ken

Rockwell say that it's not uncommon for a cheaper lens to outperform a more

expensive pro lens.

 

 

Thanks

[cameron_price]

It really depends how large you will be printing. I'm a firm believer that in general, at small print sizes, (smaller than 8x12), and unless the lens is a total lemon, the everyday amateur shooter (ie, non-professional) is better off buying the least expensive of two lenses (of comparable focal length) and spending the saved money on a tripod or a quality polarizer or a flash (with the intent of learning how to use it properly). Of course, unless you can justify needing a faster constant aperture (and I mean really justify it, and not use some lame-duck argument about occasionally needing the faster aperture for casual indoor photography, or anything similar), then get a more practical lens. Which isn't to say of course, that I'm against expensive Nikkors; I just think outside of specialized uses, there's a work around with more consumer/pro-sumer based lenses.

 

So, just to directly answer your question with my two cents, there are negligible differences between the two lenses if you are printing smaller than 8x12 (to view the differences, you'd really have to be looking for them; if that is the case, I think you just missed the point of the picture, which is communicate something other than sharpness and pixel peeping. Sorry, couldn't help but add another editorial comment). If you are printing larger than 8x12, then I think the differences become more pronounced, with a direct relationship between the amount of difference and the size of your final print.

[jwallphoto]

I had the 18-55 on a D40. I did a head-to-head comparison with it at ~35mm vs. a Nikon F3 with a 50/1.4 and Velvia 50. For what it's worth, you can see it here: http://jwallphoto.blogspot.com/2007/12/film-vs-digital.html

 

I no longer have most of that equipment, by the way, having gone to a D200 and sold the F3, D40 and 18-55 (I kept the 50/1.4). Seemed like a good lens, and the whole D40 w/ 18-55mm made a nice backpacking camera, but I needed the $$.

[simon_hickie1]

I've certainly printed to 10 x 15 inches with 'consumer' zooms and also had images converted to 35mm slides blown up to 4 feet by 6 feet that showed perfectly acceptable sharpness. What I find matters more in terms of image quality is colour and contrast and the ability of my camera to capture the dynamic range within the image. For example, my 18-70 nikkor has fine sharpness when tripod mounted, but has relatively poor colour and contrast. However, my 28-200 zoom is excellent in terms of sharpness, colour and contrast.

 

Given that for my type of photography I'm typically shooting at f8 or f11, I can't help feeling that faster lenses would be wasted on me, not to mention being heavier to carry around!

[elliot1]

In good lighting or with flash, you won't really see a difference. Depth-of-field is obviously different between the two.

 

This is a link to a test shot I did a while back. This crop is probably about 3% or 5% of the original image. I processed both images with DXO software.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6149199&size=lg

[niccoury]

contrast is going to be better as well as build quality and I think it's sharper.

 

You have to take Rockwell's stuff with a grain of salt I've found...

[markko]

In the corners, you may notice a difference at larger sizes.

[walterh]

Hand-held at f8 the difference will be small if visible at all. It also depends on many factors like the amount of detail in the scene. Wide open the pro lens will be better and more detail may be visible, especially with good shooting technique. Sharpening in post processing can often hush up lower sharpness, however some images may not allow strong sharpening (e.g. animal fur).

[aaron l]

When it's dark in the shadows, morning or afternoon, you'll wish you had the faster lens. You'll notice a sharpness difference. Things will just pop with the 2.8 lenses. They'll look fine with the consumer, but you will always notice in things like fur, sand, grained objects. You'll never regret having the best.

[lex_jenkins]

I've heard people say it's not uncommon for Ken Rockwell to say stuff like that.

[pete_s.]

I'm with Ken Rockwell. Instead of what people think I suggest having a look at photozone.de where they actually measure resolution. As you'll see these lenses are head to head at most apertures. But as mentioned a gazillion times before, you pay a premium for constant f/2.8 and build quality. And for those that needs it the kit lens will simply not do.

 

Peter

[douglas_greenberg]

I own both of these lenses, and in real life situations I see NO real difference in image quality, period. The 17-55mm. is faster and MUCH better built, but the basic sharpness, contrast, and color fidelity are not better. The quality one gets at huge enlargement sizes is going to be much, much more dependent upon one's technique and such than on whatever minute difference in optical quality distinguishes the original images.

[raymond_petty1]

You're not buying the 17-55/2.8 for what it can do for you at f8.

[ntv666]

I have the 17-55 /f2.8 . The sharpness is uncomparable with 18-55.You can see the 17-55 performence in the sample posted here.<div></div>

[larrybc]

Another consideration is the bokeh (assuming you care about it, of course). I bought the 17-55/2.8 because I wanted something that would produce better bokeh than my Sigma 18-50/2.8 and Nikkor 18-200VR. This would be noticeable, even in small photos, too. But considering the price diff. btwn the 18-55 and 17-55, that's a lot to pay for bokeh! ;-) But I also wanted a lens that focused more accurately than my 18-50/2.8, and that I could shoot with wide open.

 

If you don't need the smooth bokeh, wide open shooting ability, and fast AF of the 17-55/2.8, it's pretty hard to justify its price and size and weight.

 

 

larsbc