17-40 L image quality worth $700/- continues

[dhiren]

Hi guys

 

Thanks for all your thoughts, but the sad part is that I am still

undecided. I saw couple of test shots by earlier posters between 17-40

L & 28 f/2.8 for Yakim [when he posted his question]. Even at F/8

17-40 couldn�t perform as well [in terms of sharpness] as 28mm prime.

 

Currently I have 18-55 EF-S, which is pretty decent, and then I have

three primes 28 f/2.8 50 f/1.8 100 f/2.8 USM Macro 28mm on my 300D is

pretty good and I only shoot landscape when I am on vacation, �cause I

live in DC, so I mostly shoot architecture, macro or street. So there

would be very little time I would use 17mm. and even if once in a

while I use; I use my 18-55 at F/8, which gives fairly sharp pictures.

I just can�t digest that fact that to get little more sharpness than

my 18-55 I have to spend huge $700/-. And if I want such ultrawide

sharp shots I can buy an Elan and 275/- and shoot fuji velvia instead

to get some real sharp with my 28mm.

 

Let me know am I on right track?

 

This is the handheld shot with kit lens at f/8<div></div>

[dhiren]

please follow-up this thread if you are reading this first time

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006jfq

[andrew_dessert]

Well, I don't know much for any of the lenses you are talking about, but if you can shoot pictures like your Bee picture, I'd say wait and/or save your money. Very stunning shot!

[jim_larson1]

An intermediate step would be the 20-35. But with the lenses you already have, it would be a waste.

 

Its the holiday season. If you have $700, upgrade. If you don't, then wait.

 

If you want "just a touch wider", then go for something like the 24/2.8. Frankly, I think your kit probably needs a touch more umph on the telephoto end. How about a 70-200/4L. Worth the money.

[PuppyDigs]

No zoom, L or otherwise, has optical performance equal to a Canon prime. There are always tradeoffs in terms of distortion, flare, sharpness, weight, size and weight. Most shooters are willing to bare the extra weight, cost, bulk and lost of optical quality for the convenience of zooming.

 

Incidentally, even if the EF 17-40 4L USM only offers a slight gain in sharpness, you still get a better build, internal focus and zoom, smoother zoom and AF action, sealed mount, a distance window, ring-USM, FTM and a cool cookie cutter shade. Plus, it is compatible with all EOS bodies.

 

Excellent bug pic!

[lu_yin]

You probably don't need 17-40L is you are only shooting landscape at f/8. At that aperture, pretty much all the lens are the same. Just remember to carry a tripod.

 

If you enjoy macro, like that bug picture, getting a decent telephone zoom is probably better for you. As suggested, 70-200/4L is a good choice.

 

And also consider 15/2.8 fisheye. It's a much wider lens (actually wider than 14mm rectlinear).

[andrew robertson]

Dhiren, that's actually a bee-impersonating fly.

 

They look and act like bees - it's their natural defense. It's called mimicry.

[river side]

well if that's the 18-55 kit lens of the Rebel then i think it should be good enough for 4x6 prints... wonder why so many people trash it.. maybe cuz it's cheap.. and some people need to pay upwards of $500 to feel they have a good lens..

[jon_austin]

Dhiren:

 

Lots of good advice already here; one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that you can always return a lens to the retailer (within their return/exchange period) if you're not satisfied with it for any reason. I did this with a lens I bought from B&H recently. Of course, I had to pay the return shipping; if you purchase locally, you can save the shipping charges but you'll pay sales tax and possibly a higher purchase price.

 

I think you owe it to yourself -- particularly given your level of photographic skill, as evidenced by your bee sample -- to try out the 17-40 side-by-side against your 18-55, and determine for yourself if it's worth the money TO YOU.

 

I bought my 17-40 in July from a local retailer, paid $770 + sales tax, and I LOVE it! I've never thought twice about the price I paid. Of course, I had no wide angle lenses (prime or zoom) until then, so I had no relative quality or substitution value issues with which to contend.

 

Good luck!

[victor_yushenko]

Dhiren nice images in your folder.

 

I disagree that prime is better then zoom (17-40). When I did my testing they looked fairly equal.

 

I think that most people assume that primes now days are still better then zoom because:

1. It used to be that way.

2. It is logical since prime is simpler.

 

Zooms might already be better then primes (if not, then they will be soon) simply because there is more money going into their development then into primes (I am only talking about Canon line up). Last time I bought a photo equipment from a local store all lenses that other people were looking at where zooms. It would make sence for Canon to spend as much R&D money on zooms as posible. That's what sells well (and zooms being more expensive overall might have better margins as well).

 

Said that primes do have excelent optical qualities and only lack popularity and convinence.

 

Nice shot from kit lens. I saw one review comparing 17-40 vs kit lens and at f8 kit lens actually looked better. I still would buy 17-40 next because it would fit full frame camera.

[christopher.]

Dhiren, I own a Leica and have had some of the best lenses on the planet (only one at a time.) Has it given me better pics? Well, yes and no. While my photography has improved it has only improved because I only take one lens with me and concentrate on seeing rather than zooming and changing, and getting caught up in thinking if I only had that other lens. Due to the fact that the system (and my wife) only allows me to afford to own one lens at a time I accept this and move on, rather than worrying about other lenses I don't have. This has been very liberating and has improved my photography greatly. Did getting a Leica improve my photography? Absolutely. Was it because of the lens. No. In fact my skill could never match or ever utilize the optical quality of the lens. What is my point? Well the point is - as soon as I realized that I just need to accept what I have and learn to use it to the best of my ability I improved my vision and got better and that is what it is all about. I am going to add a Drebel to my kit. I will get the zoom because it is inexpensive and because it crops the center of the image it already makes the lens shine. I think it is funny how people debate if it is worth it to get the 10D, when if they would perfect just using what they can afford they will make better pics than a yuppie camera fondler any day, and that is a fact. If you look at various gallerys on photo net, some of the best pictures are taken with what most equipment junkies deem as weak or crappy equipment, when in reality the best pics are made by those that master the equipment they can afford and already have. It took me many thousands of dollars and 7 years to realize this. BTW, that is a great pic.

[andreas_carl]

Stay with primes, or stay with what you got (the 50f1.8 and 100f2.8 macro are superb lenses). Canon will come out with a full sensor size digital rebel, well if not in 2004 then in 2005, at which point you can think about lenses again.

 

The bee-colored fly is plastic, right???

[dhiren]

The fly is plastic and so is the flower, the whole thing is staged !!!

You should have been a spy !

[gabrielma]

Same here. If you don't see the benefit between the 17-40L and the 18-55 EFS, then don't make a $700+ mistake. In the other hand, you were talking about the lens shooting film, then there will be no question about it, the 17-40L is excellent for true wide angle, and wasted in the 1.6x crop world.<BR>

A true 17-40 L field of view in film would be replicated with a 10-25mm lens on the 10D/300D, so we're comparing apples and oranges in terms of design, purpose and engineering.

[marcus_erne]

I have also achieved very good results with the kit-lens when doing close-ups.

However, I have the feeling that it doesn't resolve detail as nicely towards infinity; e.g. landscapes.

Like some else suggested, a side-by-side comparison done for yourself by yourself is the only option to tell how much more the L-glass is capable to resolve...

Next week I will receive my 28-135mm IS, then I have something to compare to.

[ellis_davison]

Popular Photography has a test of the 17-40 this month which is consistent with my results. This lens gives a very uniform performance with good, but not great, sharpness. The best quality of this lens is not sharpness but what I will call clarity. There is a three-dimensional quality particularly evident in pictures of people that I have only seen on a few lenses: Zeiss 135mm f/4 Sonnar on my father's old Contax IIa, early 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, 50mm f/2 Planar on a Contarex. Canon must have done something with glass and multi-coating that has not gotten a lot of press.

 

If you are going to take pictures of the governor's mansion at Williamsburg and want to count the bricks, you are better off with a fixed focal-length lens. I have the last version of the 35mm f/2 FD (and I believe the EF version is the same lens) and it will do that to the extent you can in 35mm. However, if you are doing the kind of work where clarity and depth come into play, such as people and (I suspect) flowers etc. this little zoom may be better for you.

 

I have noticed that it is significantly easier to focus manually than my 20mm f/2.8, although the 20mm is much sharper except in the very corners. I think this also has to do with the clarity.

 

Hope this helps.