The 17-40 has a bit less distortion, flares less, has better color, is 1mm wider, has a much better build including weather seals, and most importantly can fit more than just the 20D and dreb
oh and it can share a 77mm filter with the rest of Canons 2.8 zooms which is nice
The Big Bad wrote:
Ricardo, theres a few more differences
The 17-40 has a bit less distortion, flares less, has better color, is 1mm wider, has a much better build including weather seals, and most importantly can fit more than just the 20D and dreb
oh and it can share a 77mm filter with the rest of Canons 2.8 zooms which is nice
18-55 less CA, less distortion and sharper at the edges, waters seals? who cares I have a rain cape!.......I can't afford a full frame or 1D MKII so who cares!
77mm wow a 58mm is cheaper..........
some said: about the 17-40mm f4..............
all i can say is this lens is over-rated for its true value and performance...it's good, but not good enough for the "L" standard...this is probably good for high-end amateurs and sophisticated snapshooters...definitely NOT FOR THE PRO.
and I agree so why not a 18-55mm stick it in a water housing and if it leaks....
oh well I lost 70 bucks.........
Well not to sound cocky or conscending but those of us who can afford FF or a 1D mkII DO IN FACT CARE
58mm filter is cheaper ? Yep but if all your lens are 77mm is sure nice to be able to purchase just a single high quality filter and use it for all your lens isnt it ?
Weather sealing isnt just for water either I hope you realize, its pretty darn useful when shooting out in the southwest desert with lots of blowing dust. Of course you dont do that so "who cares" right ?
"not for the pro" ? Thats an intresting comment I wouldnt of expected out of you. So apparently only certain lens can be used by pro's these days ? Id be quite intrested to learn further of what gear is acceptable for pro use. I wouldnt want to be mistakenly use the wrong lens.
Well Ricardo unfortunately I only did a comparison between an 17-40/4L and a 17-85IS. This IMO is a legitimate question that many people ask.
Advantages of a 17-40/4L:
1. It's an L lens so it must be better. How much better? See the test
2. Constant aperture F/4 (17-85IS is F/4.5 at 40mm)
3. Weather sealing and better build quality
4. Comes with a hood.
5. It's NOT an EFS lens so you can still use it with your film body.
Advantages of a 17-85IS:
1. Cheaper
2. Lighter and more compact
3. Wider zoom range
4. Has IS
The reason I posted a poll instead of just doing the test and telling you my conclusion is because my own perception is coloured by my knowledge of which is the L lens and which is not. I know what I see, and I do believe the L lens to be superior. If I had worded the poll differently, e.g "Image A is the 17-85IS, Image B is the 17-40/4L - which is the better image?" you can bet 98% of people will vote for the L.
Posting a poll like this gives a qualitative feel for how much superior the L is. I'm not even going to bother posting a poll for this following comparison between the 17-85IS at 85mm F/8, and the 85mm F/1.2L at F/8. It is obvious which one the L is:
Setting aside features (ie IS and the extra mm's in range), the 18-55 EF-S and 17-85 EF-S probably do have very similar optical performance. On the 300D the 18-55 EF-S did fine. Ultimately it didn't resolve much detail and CA was a problem. I think Ricardo's point is that for $500 - are you getting that much more?
I think this is where the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 makes a nice option - at least you're getting F2.8 and can see some nice bokeh that none of the aforementioned lenses can do. I had the DC version of the Sigma, it was on par with the 18-55 EF-S. Sigma had better color, the Canon had slightly better detail. Thus far the 18-50 F2.8 reviews have been good, most agree it is sharp as (or in some reviews, sharper) as the 17-40L. Ironcially, if the 18-50 was HSM and had the little depth meter window, it would probably be a $600+ lens too.
As for this comparison, neither the A nor B shots are impressive (no offense intended to the photographer). In both cases the shots look soft. I'd guess B, but no money on the table.
Quadra950 wrote:
As for this comparison, neither the A nor B shots are impressive (no offense intended to the photographer). In both cases the shots look soft. I'd guess B, but no money on the table.
No offense taken. I agree that both shots are soft. But then I think I have done enough to make sure the shots were sharp:
1. Plenty of light
2. Tripod mounted (a Gitzo 1227 with Acratech ballhead). Camera left mounted on tripod during lens change.
3. Fast shutter speed
4. Wide angle
5. Same AF point with every shot, with a press of the AF button every time the aperture was changed. AF point was over the AMP building - the ugly brown building between the tall silver skyscraper and blue skyscraper. And yes - this camera AF's properly (see the 85mm shots above).
So I do not believe that it was my technique or my equipment that produced the blurred photos. I have controlled enough variables to make sure that its the lens which produces the disparity in the image.
And both lenses were stopped down to f/8?? The 85 1.2 is no surprise, but I'd expected the 17-85 to produce better results than that. That crop is just horrendous for f/8...
As for the 17-40 versus 18-55 conundrum, there is something to be said for the enjoyment gained from using nice equipment, and the 17-40 is a more finely crafted tool than the 18-55. Some people value the experience of using a finely crafted tool very highly and others don't. It's all personal preference. Of course the end product (the photo) is more important, but we're not all professionals and some of like *using* the equipment just as much as we like showing off what it can produce (resolution, contrast, etc.)
SnaggS wrote:
1. On first look, you go ahh, A is darker so appears more contrasty i.e. better, but obviously the exposures were slightly different for each lens.
Yeah, but you might change your mind about which lens offers more contrast if you move from comparing the two different crops to comparing the difference between pixels within each crop.
Anyways, the results of this poll show why most of you are in the Canon forum
I am guessing B is the 17-40. It appears to improve from f4 to 5.6 and stay pretty consistent from there. Same characteristics as my 17-40. Honestly both sets of shots do not look very impressive (no offense intended). Would it be possible to do another test and shoot from solid ground instead of a bridge and use MLU? Also I would love to see crops at other focal lengths; 28 and 40 maybe?
When I read about the 20D and 17-85 I was ready to go out and buy that combo. I have always been frustrated by not having a good general purpose zoom for the 1.6x cameras and I really think IS is a useful feature. Now that Canon has produced what I was hoping for I am wondering if it is worth it? $2K for a camera and lens that while the camera is definitely nicer than my D60, the lens (17-85) really doesn't seem to be so hot from what I read so far. For $500+ it seems this lens is a disappointment. Unfortunately this test doesn't seem to shed much light on the performance of the 17-85.
Jon, I will ask a friend of mine to lend me his copy of a 17-40/4L. I want to do a shootout between my lens and another copy, as I have long suspected that my copy is not the best. Thanks for your comments.
Did you say which is which yet or did I miss it in the previous posts? When I first got my 17-40 I went out and took some tripod mounted shots at different aperatures and at f4 I was a little disappointed, but by f5.6 the lens is really sharp and pretty much stays consistant from there on to all reasonable aperatures. I considered returning it, but did some prints and even though there was a noticable difference between f4 and f5.6 viewing at 100% on screen in a 8x10 print it was barely noticable. This made me appreciate how much we not pick lenses these days.
In general how do you like your 17-85? I have a 28-135 I use on my EOS-3 and really loved that combo. Although some people don't seem to think much of that lens I was always very happy with it for my intended uses. The 17-85 is an identical FL range on a 1.6x camera and I imagine with the IS and high ISO capabilities of the D20 it would open up a whole new range of possibilities.
Jon, I have not revealed the answer yet. At the moment i'm still the only person on the planet who knows 100% what the answer is Like I said on the first page, I will let a couple of days pass before I reveal the answer. IMO there is no shame in getting it "wrong". If you genuinely thought that the other image was the L, then that's your opinion and I respect that.
And, it's not my 17-85IS. It belongs to a friend who was gracious enough to lend it to me to do a test.
