EF-S 18-55 and 17-40 f4 comparison on 300D

[gabor_gyulay]

I have an EOS 300D and EF-S 18-55 lens, which is too soft I

think. In some cases it could produce nice sharp pictures,

some situations it couldn't even outperform my previous

Canon G2. It is not focusing or depth of field or

camera shaking problem !

 

I would like to take sharp pictures, but I would like to do

it with a zoom, I have no time to change lenses. (I know

primes are better, but someone wrote the 17-40/f4 L

could produce sharp pictures like those)

 

I read a lot about 17-40/f4 L, which seems to be a fine

solution, but I would like to know how it is better.

This is not a cheap lens, so it must shock me with it's

sharpness compared to EF-S. Will it ?

 

Another serious problem with EF-S is to create pictures

towards the sun. (not direct to sun) You will lose

contrast, sharpness etc.

 

I saw pictures taken with this 17-40 lens, but they are

downsampled to low resolution and this way not useful for me,

and of course there is no way to comapare them with

EF-S 18-55 in the same situation.

 

Could anyone take pictures at the same shooting situation,

same settings, with the same camera (300D) with both of

these lenses ? (and post or place it in original size or

100% crop of parts)

 

It would be a gret help, (I think not only for me)

 

Thanks!

[chris_david]

Sorry, I don't have a 18-55 so I can't help you with the comparison shots. I do have a 17-40mm and it is very good. I would suggest you pick up a 50mm f1.8 as they are so cheap and so good.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Your not the only one that would love to see a comparo.The 18-55 lens is obviously a pretty crude bit of gear judging by the pics i've seen with it so far

[digitmstr]

Can't you borrow or rent one from a store near you? that would be the BEST way for YOU to decide... You can even take your camera to the store and tell them you are thinking of purchasing the 17-40. They WILL let you put one on in the store and you can snap some pictures and take the time to "inspect" them at home, side by side to the ones you took with the 18-55.

[yakim_peled1]

I must warn you about those L lenses. Do NOT buy any of them. If you buy one, you will never be happy with anything else. That will cause you enormous financial problems as you'll always be in a quest to get more. I think that Canon primes and L lenses should all bear a note saying: "Beware ! Addictive substance !".

 

Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[jim_larson1]

I would challenge the assumption that you need a zoom, and don't have time to change lenses.

 

I find the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 a powerful combination on a dSLR. SURE I don't get perfect composition all the time. BUT, cropping images to taste is a breeze. Not to mention the fact that both of these lenses together are $400, 1/3 the price of a 16-35/2.8L.

 

24/2.8 not wide enough? Consider the 20/2.8 instead.

 

My advice: The 50/1.8 is $70. Buy one today, and see how you like it! This lens would compliment the 17-40/4L very well if you buy one later.

[aaron_lam]

You are comparing a ~$125 lens with a ~$800 lens. Which one

do you think is going to be better? That is the equivalent of

comparing a used $7K Honda to a new $50K Mercedes. I think

the real honest question is if you can afford it. Personally, I think

if you can, the 17-40 is a great lens for people who can't afford

the 16-35. The contrast is better, it is sharper, less distortion,

and better build. Is it work $700 differenece? Only you can decide

how much your pictures/hobby/profession is worth.

 

I have head that the 18-55 wasn't all that bad. A 100% crop isn't

going to help you. If you use both lenses, mounted on a tripod, at

f8-f11, they will be pretty close except to the most discerning eye.

Where I think the 17-40 is a clear winner is contrast, color, and

build quality (after purchasing a few L lenses, I agree with

Yakim... plus I simple love that the zoom doesn't expand and

creep).<div></div>

[splat]

Giampiero Scuderi,

 

I don't think it is fair to assume that everyone lives somewhere where renting or borrowing a 17-40 is an option. I don't know anyone with this lense and no store within 1000Km of me caries it. To buy it I would have to get it mail order. It would be nice is someone with access to both lenses could post some comparison shots for people like me.

[yat_long_tan]

I have both, the 17-40 I bought for my old D30. When I bought the 300D kit ( I wanted the kit lens for reason of portability and size ), I did some test to see how it compares. I found that the 18-55 at f3.5-f4 is rather soft at the corners, while the 17-40 at f4 has better contrast and sharper throughout ( center and corner ). At f5.6, the 18-55 just matches the 17-40 at f4. At f8-f11, the contrast and sharpness are similar but the 18-55 has quite bad C.A at the corners while the 17-40 has very little C.A throughout.

 

It is worth usd 600 more? It is your call. For me, the 18-55 serves the purpose of a walkabout lens when I don't care to carry the much larger 17-40mm, but for serious and critical work, the 17-40 mm is necessary.

[yat_long_tan]

Just to add some picture to show how it looks like at the corners<div></div>

[david_emery2]

I went and found a nice office building (bricks, etc) and spent some time shooting it at various lens settings. Note that I'm not a pro photographer, so what follows is my completely uninformed opinion :-)

 

The lens has some noticeable distortion at full wide-angle, with some color shifting around the edges. After about 22mm, it 'settles down', and I didn't notice any problems even at full zoom, regardless of f-stop.

 

Your opinions may vary :-).

 

Oh, I took the collected advice and bought a 75-300 IS lens as Lens #2. I'll probably get a 28mm fixed lens as Lens #3.

 

dave<div></div>