16-35 and 17-40 compared

[samir]

Attached in this thread are 2 images of a "painting" from my 4-year old son.

The shots were not on the same day, in both cases i used a tungsten studio

light. The ambient light might have been different (natural light from the large

bay window). Both were done wide open (2.8 for the 16-35 and 4.0 with the

17-40. Both images were sharpened using Fred action Medium (so sane

sharpening on both). So not exactly the same set up, but still interesting: the

17-40 is much less contrasty and yields a flat picture...<div></div>

[samir]

Here is the 17-40 ...<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

1. It may be missing something but I see only one picture. Comparison is a bit problematic under these conditions.....

 

2. As tests were done with different set-up, results are less informative.

 

3. I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison (I suspect many will) with the exact set-up. I'd also ask (if possible) to show the pictures side by side

[samir]

I am not a professionnal reviewer or tester, just try to convey how are perceive

the performace of both lenses. Some piece of info, on the 17-40, halogen

lights on the ceiling were on. As I do not have the 17-40 anymore I can t do a

exact comparison, but just replicate images I did 2 weeks ago. Take this

comparison for what it is and always compare for yourself. To me, at $800 the

17-40 was disappointing.

[markci]

It doesn't look less contrasty -- it just looks underexposed.

[nello]

I'll agree. The second picture looks underexposed.

 

To do a test like this, you absolutely have to have the EXACT same lighting. Otherwise, the comparison will likely be considerably flawed.

[photobyalan.com]

I'd have to agree. The shots were not taken on the same day, the lighting was very different on the two shots (just the fact that you were relying partly on natural light, which can change drastically from minute to minute never mind day to day, pretty much makes this comparison worthless), the camera is likely not in exactly the same position, the 17-40 shot was not evenly lit at all, you didn't compare the lenses at the same aperture and you don't say what focal length you used for either shot. As it stands, the two photos tell us nothing about the comparative performance of the two lenses.

[richard harris]

This test is meaningless, just from looking at your images I can tell you that the main difference between them is the lighting, not the lenses.

 

The first image has some pretty strong sidelighting which can be seen with the obvious shadow and highlight detail on the texture of the painting. The second image has very flat lighting. My guess is that there was a window on the right hand side of the image which was casting much stronger light for the first picture, but not the second.

 

Any lens would be able to pick up that detail, so believe me your tests are flawed. It is not the lenses you have tested but your lighting setup.

[samir]

I agree with all of you. However what I have observed on many shots, but

never exactly in the same context, is that the 17-40 provides flat and fuzzy

images... But since I do not have the 17-40 anymore, it will be difficult to show

it. Take this as just one experience.

[cowan stark]

Well, I'm going to jump in and say that I really like this lens...a lot. I don't find it "flat" or fuzzy at all. I've used it on a D60 and full frame on an EOS 3 and I must say, I like it much better on the digital camera and it's going to live on the D60 as a "normal" 28-70 equivalent. Previously I had a Sigma 15-30, which was pretty good, but using a ND filter or polarizer is too problematic. For my style of shooting, I don't think I've ever shot a landscape that needed a 2.8 aperture so it fits my needs nicely. I'd also wonder if you got a bad copy of the lens because I've had a very different experience.<div></div>

[charles_dunlap]

Samir Jahjah has posted similarly meaningless comparisons of these two lenses in

other threads. If he's convinced that he's really evaluating differences between the

two lenses that's fine. But to post such images claiming that they actually have any

value for someone choosing between the two lenses is rather silly.

 

Among the large variety of problems:

 

1. Lighting is clearly different.

2. Aperture is different.

3. Framing (and perhaps focal length?) are different.

4. Images are presented are down-sampled to postcard size.

 

The implication, therefore, that the photographs are "...still interesting" despite these

gross flaws in the method is ridiculous.

 

It wouldn't have taken any more effort to take two pictures under the same controlled

lighting conditions, same aperture(s), same focal lengths, and to present 100% crops

of the center and perhaps edge of the image so that we could evaluate the actual

differences.