18-55 VS 17-55 TEST, amazing results, and some help needed!

[ken_bellston]

After i read Ken Rockwell's review, i bought a cheap 18-55, i wanted to try it

out since it just cost 400 dollars....

 

his review

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm

 

I compared with my the 25x more expensive 17-55 F2.8 and the results seems

shocking...

 

as i dont really know how to to a proper lens test... im not sure if the 18-55

is really so good or its my technical fault....

 

I upload the files taken by D300 so maybe some C hings can help with the test...

 

I shot around with the 18-55... usually not longer than 35mm because then the

aperture will go up but a stop... it basically produce the same sharpness and

same colors as the 17-55.... i am stunned and bewildered... i think i am going

buy a 18-70, which has good reviews and has a better aperture variation than the

18-55 (F3.5-4.5 VS F3.5-5.6).

 

here is the zip file, containing the pictures.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/29/1888642/Lens%20test.zip

 

 

here are the two print screen of the comparison

18/17mm F3.5

<<<<18-55<<<<

>>>>17-55>>>>

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c177/kenbellston/1718mmf35.jpg

 

 

 

55mm F5.6

<<<<18-55<<<<

>>>>17-55>>>>

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c177/kenbellston/55mmf56.jpg

[juan_parm_nides]

Ken, no one or your links is working

[douglas_greenberg]

I can't see the photos for some reason, but I will offer that I think that you can get photos with the cheap kit lens that are every bit as good as those taken with the superexpensive 17-55mm (I own both). The 17-55 is significantly faster and much, MUCH more durably built. Those are real advantages. But for many, perhaps most amateur photographers, these factors are not important enough to justify the huge cost of the 17-55mm.

[john schroeder]

The Nikkor 17-55mm kit lens is a testament to what can be achieved with today's technology. The 55-200mm VR is just as good also. If you remove the [/url] abd [/img] from the links they work.

[john schroeder]

Ken. You really need to lay off the junk food. ;)

[ken_bellston]

im sorry for the links... i dont know why they have the [/url] and [/img] attached... if you just copy the links on to your browser and delete off the "tail", they work.

[joseph_wisniewski]

This is not unusual, at all.

 

I have a 70-210mm f4-5.6 that's been with me for some 15-20 years. In situations where I can shoot with its limited aperture range, it radically outperforms my 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR, a lens 15 years more modern, costing eight times as much.

 

Other factors justify an expensive, large, 4x heavier lens, especially three full stops more speed at the long end. The bigger lens has other pro features: it's weather sealed, it has an insanely fast ring USM type AF-S system, vibration reduction, the front element doesn't rotate when focusing, it doesn't zoom out whenever you point it downward, rotating tripod collar, full time focus override, etc.

[ShunCheung]

Ken, similar to what Joseph says, if you don't understand why people pay a lot more money for constant f2.8 zooms, take a look at the discussion when Dan K explores the possibility to downgrade his 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S:

17-55 or 18-55 for what I shoot

 

Carl Becker makes some excellent points there and I posted twice to explain what the potential, again potential, pitfalls are.

 

Think about it this way: you can test drive a $100K Porsche and a $15K Toyota Corolla in a residential, 25 miles/hour-speed-limit zone (approximately 40 km/hour). Would you then conclude that there is no difference between the two cars ?

[walterh]

Shun I never understood why there are so many Porsche in California. Not that I mind - our economy is very thankful. But to tell you the truth - why would anybody want a sports-car in a country where you can only go snail speed? :-P There is just no logic in there.

 

Now the 17-55 has no speed limit so that might be a different story altogether. Besides the weight of a pro body plus the lens keeps me sportive enough to envy those who can afford a Porsche. (NOW don't look for any logic behind this ^^)

[Dieter Schaefer]

Well, I won't be buying my lenses at the places you shop - $400 for a 18-55 and 25x that (=$10,000) for a 17-55? The first series 18-55 cost a little over $100 and the VR one is less than $200 - the 17-55 is just under $1200.

[Rich B NYC]

While I haven't compared a 17-55 to an 18-55, I have compared a 17-55 to my 18-70.

 

No contest at all when it comes to build quality and the f2.8 maximum aperture of the 17-55 is certainly nice. However, I tend to use this focal length range for landscape and stopped down to at least f8. After comparing the results at the apertures that I actually use, I decided then and there to hold on to my 18-70 as there were virtually no differences to be found.

[lex_jenkins]

I haven't used the 17-55/2.8 DX, can't comment there. I do have an regularly use the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX and 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkors. The 18-70 DX is a good value but it's not in the same class as the 35-70/2.8D, not at any aperture. Nothing you'd notice in some types of photos but it's clear in photos where critical detail is important, such as landscapes, architecture, etc.

 

Cheaper lenses are cheaper for a reason. They're often cheaply made. While the optics may be good - even very good - you have to decide whether your usage will be appropriate for the build quality. I don't want to worry that something will break or lose adjustment from a little jostling, or that a piece of tape holding critical components together (yup, some cheaper lenses are taped together internally) will dry out and fall apart in a few years.

[diane_madura]

Ken, while I'm waiting for your files to download....I don't have the 18-55, but I've compared the 18-70 and the 17-55, and at first look, they seem to be very close. Colors slightly richer and contrast slightly higher with the 17-55. To me the biggest difference is the amount of fine detail that the 17-55 will pick up. The 17-55 wins hands down.

 

One question, Ken. Did you print these photos, or only look at them on your monitor? I think if you print them, you might see a greater difference. Just a guess, I don't know for sure.

 

Oh, I can finally see them. They do look very close.

 

Like the others have said, the 17-55 is wonderful to use because of its speed.

 

Maybe try a picture with some texture in it, like something woven.

[ShunCheung]

"<I>the 17-55 is wonderful to use because of its speed.</I>"

<P>

And the Porsche is wonderful to drive because of its speed.

<P>

But if you are only going to the supermarket, the Toyota Corolla is just fine. My Dad drives one.

[juan_parm_nides]

If i had to rate this three lens: 17-55 Nikon, 17-50 Tamron and 18-70 Nikon, the results would be:

 

1.- Nikkor 17-55 f:2,8

 

2.- Tamron 17-50 f:2,8

 

3.- Nikkor 18-70 f:3,5-4,5

 

And of course, if I could I would buy a Porsche (Carrera 4S)

[ken_bellston]

I am aware that the build quality of the 17 is way better than 18... when i was in the shop, i immediately fell in love with the 17-55... and too, the aperture of 17 is greater, AF faster and better CA... however, i expected it to produce much sharper and better photos using same apertures. in the test, the 18 is at full wide open aperture, while the 17 is not... i also compared 17's 2.8 VS 18's 5.6 at 55mm, there is a significant difference between them.... so i was wondering why a 25x more expensive lens has to shoot at the same aperture as a cheap lens to get the same result?

 

but well again, its a premium product, and there is not in between like canon's 24-105, and its 17-55 IS is much cheaper than the nikon's one, and i heard its not worse than the nikon's... For nikon DX, its either cheap or expensive, nothing else in between. (24-85 probably, but its 24 at wide and its AFD)

 

Dieter, i live in HK, so the currency here is about 1/8 of the US's. 400 means 50, 400x25=HKD10000=USD1200...

 

would anyone have some links on the 18-70 VS 17-55? i might want to purchase one and use it when lighting is not horrible, as its much lighter and easier to carry around... its really tiring carrying a D300+grip, 17-55, 70-200, 85.14 and SB800 around...

 

haha, Shun, great example porsche vs corolla... i would want a 911 GT3! you reminded me when i was choosing my car, Audi A4 3.2 quottro or Evo8. i chose the Audi which is double the price of the Evo.

 

Diane, absolutely, i will do a test to shoot something with fine and fabric texture... it will be up by tomorrow.

[ShunCheung]

Ken, first of all, the 17-55 is not 25 times more expensive than the 18-55. Regardless of which country or currency you are taking about, it is more like 10 times.

 

But the 17-55 is designed to be used at f2.8 for wedding photography, etc. That is why it is sharper focusing to 10 feet than at infinity. It is just like the Porsche is designed to fly on the Autobahn in Germany that Walter is familiar with. If you go grocery shopping on local streets, a Toyoto Corolla is more fuel efficient and has more comfortable rear seats for a family. So would you say a Corolla is "better than" a Porsche, at least in the 25 miles/hour zone?

 

For Nikon DX, there are many mid-range zooms, perhaps too many. There are 3 versions of the 18-55, the earlier 18-70mm kit lens for the D70, the new 16-85mm VR that is somewhat overpriced and the 17-55.

You have a lot of choices.

[samara_spiro]

Ken, you didn't say what aperture you were shooting at. Once you stop down the cheaper lens, it produces very good results, and it's true that you won't be able to see much difference. However, if you shoot with both at f/3.5, you will see significantly more corner softness on the cheaper lens.

 

I think the MTF tests at Photozone.de are pretty reliable, and confirm what you said, at f/5.6 or f/8, the resolution of the cheaper lens is as good as, and sometimes possibly even a little better than the more expensive one.

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/234-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-ii-review--test-report?start=1

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/231-nikkor-af-s-17-55mm-f28-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1

 

Another person claimed that, in some shots such as landscapes, you can see more detail with the 17-55. Well, that's not true according to the Photozone test. e.g., at wide angle, the 18-55's maximum resolution is actually a little higher than the 17-55's.

 

The Nikon 18-55mm is an unusually good lens for its class, and much better than some of the low priced lenses from competitors. I often like to use it when I want to travel light and don't need a wide range.