yakim_peled1 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Hi All , Again, I am agonizing. Just when I decided to purchase the primes I came across some fantastic reviews and reports of this new zoom. What shall I do ? The primes are faster and 250$ cheaper (lens hoods included, I will buy from B&H). The zoom has USM. Other focal lengths are a non-issue as I am currently a film user and don't know when I'll buy a DSLR. I once had the 17-35/2.8 and found myself constantly in the 24mm and 35mm settings. Other than that, I did not like it's performance. The 16-35/2.8 is out of the question (price...) so it's basically down to the question in the subject. So, have any of you compared the zoom to these primes ? I am especially interested in reports from full-frame users (i.e. film or 1Ds). Flare ? Chromatic Aberrations ? Sharpness ? Contrast ? The lens (es) will mostly be used at wide apertures. Filter size is also a non-issue. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaldo op Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Yakim. the 35/2 is the best lens I have ever had. Sharp, color, contrast. So small and light it can always be with me even in a pocket. The shrpness in edge to edge in every F-stop It is a drag to change lenses but when i put on the 35 I know I am going to like the pic. The 24 is good but not as great as the 35 (a bit less sharp, especially when full open) Why not ask 17-40 Vs 16-35 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 I know that the primes are excellent. I want to know if the 17-40/4 can match them. The 16-35/2.8 is out of the question for me as it's too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Hi Yakim, I've just acquired the 17-40 F4L, as it is an ideal standard zoom for my EOS 10D. I'm a prime man at heart and so would never really expect a zoom to be as good as primes, but here are my feelings on this lens: It's pretty sharp, but no match for primes. It resists flare very well, especially for a zoom. It has some barrel distortion at the wide end, and some pincushion at the long - not awful but noticeable, even in the viewfinder. I haven't noticed any chromatic aberration. I have made some tests to compare it with my EF28 2.8, I will try and upload these now. Basically the prime is much sharper, especially wide open, but this continues all the way through the range of apertures. It also has better contrast. If I was a full frame user (which I was until last week...) I would stick to primes. The only reason I have the 17-40 is that it seems the best solution for the 10D. All my other lenses are still primes, but this is my wideangle solution for DSLR.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 next test image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 and again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Final one :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Ps: the test images are full frame crops from a 10D, tripod mounted with no post processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 Another important P.S. The max prints I make are 20x30cm. According to the pictures presented, it seems I will be able to tell the difference. I mean, if I can see them on the monitor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 The 14-40 pictures all seem darker. Are we seeing another artifact of the lens or was it just that the sun had gone behind a cloud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard harris Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 No - I'm a novice when it comes to lens testing: for some reason when I changed the lenses the camera's aperture priority mode decided on a different exposure which was half a stop lighter... This does make contrast and colour hard to judge (sorry) but sharpness shouldn't be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_berthe Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Thanks Yakim for asking this kind of question. And thanks to Richard for this kind of answer. Now you both made my day: I now can wait and NOT dream about getting that lens. The primes I have are in my bag to stay� Unless there is a deal out there that will be very very difficult to refuse. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Ah, well; two brief reviews does a consensus make! Especially when they are not consistant. . . . Another gent recently compared the 17-40/4L to the 20/2.8 and decided in favor of the zoom. To my mind, the jury is still being polled. I look forward to a few more reviews. Of course, my next mortgage payment may make the decision for me. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 One must remember that the 24 F2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 F2 all have excellent reputations optically. The 20 F2.8 is not so good, as it gets harder to make a wider lens like this. I felt that the 17-40 F4L was very competitive with the 20 F2.8 on the basis of my results. It's also likely significantly better (and looked it to me) than my 24-85. I doubt it would be on par with the 24 F2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 F2 primes, but one couldn't reasonably expect it to be. Even the more expensive 24-70 and 16-35 are not on a par with these lenses. However, for a zoom lens of the range that the 17-40 F4L offers, it is very good indeed, and certainly more than enough for a great many casual and not-so-casual users, particularly on 1.6X FOV crop bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samir Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I have posted some pictures atthe end of the following thread http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0055CB. I have been disappointed by its performance, even compared to the old 17-35 2.8. I agree that the 17-35 is less sharp than the new 17-40, but what makes a picture pleasing is not only sharpness. I will test the 16-35 2.8 and then make a choice! Thanks again for posting the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Thank-you Richard! Some people love to eat up the high tech stuff that the marketing people throw out as bait. A casual photographer would have no interest in the 17-40 except that it is the next "great" thing. Composing an effective image with a 17mm or 20mm lens requires perserverance, thought, and time. The casual user who spends a fortune for this lens will soon be using it in the 24-40 range and the pros know that it can't match the primes simply for design and manufacturing restrictions. Yes, a pro who demands absolute flexibility in focal range and who is willing to accept the loss of resolution and contrast, and increased distortion will use this lens (perfect for newspaper photo journalists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_j_m Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 I know that MTF charts don't mean much but looking at the 17-40's charts on Canon's website, there seems to be quite some performance falloff towards the edges. It seems to be made for DSLRs with a 1.6 crop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whayne_padden Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 I know this is a canon thread, but does any one know how the New Nikon 12-24 performs. If Nikon has come up with a quality ultrawide lens for digital, what's holding Canon back. 17mm on a 10D is not that wide. I'd be using film for wide angle and digital for telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niklas_nikitin Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Bjørn Rørslett have tested the AFS 12-24 mm f/4 G ED IF DX, you will find the review at: http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS12-24DX_rev00.html -- Nicke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildpicture Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Just such a shame that Canon doesn't produce an EF17/4 prime lens. With my old FD system, I always used the 17/4 and 35/2 primes. But with EOS you only have the choice between 20/2.8 and 14/2.8L wide angle primes, or the zooms. So to get a 17mm, you will have to go for the zooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierre_bize Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 "Too bad canon does not make a 17mm f/4"Have you tried Tokina's 17mm ATX pro? I'm a prime guy too and I'm seriously considering to buy this one. Any experience anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_grant Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 ONe could not reasonable expect the 17-40 to equal the 35/2 or 24/2.8 prime. According to reviews I have read, it does compare quite well with the 16-35 though. I also saw Samir's comparison shots. They were not useful since the lighting and exposure were so different. 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