Just got my 17-40 today and shot some tests. I bought the 17-40 to replace my 18-55mkII Kitlens on my 350D (XT). The thing is actually, after shooting the tests, I don't know why I'm paying almost 700 Euro's for the 17-40 while I'll have a cheap kitlens which performs also pretty well. Here are the tests below. Do I have a bad copy? Do I have to test them differently? I also compared it with my 50mm 1.8 mkII. I know this one should be sharper (and it is), but it's just to compare.
Many people who were lucky to get a good copy of 18-55 have been asking the same question I know the feeling. The 18-55 can be a good companion - small, light and a good quality.
My advice, however, don't make any rush buy/sale decisions now. Keep both lenses and learn then more. See if you like/need other tangible features of 17/40 - build, color, USM. You can always sell the 17-40 later, its price is not going to drop.
You should also check some real shots that have green, ditto flare resistance and CA performance, etc. For info on this try going to www.luminouslandscape.com go to reviews and 17-40 vs 16-35.
Sharpness isn't the only criteria to measure a lens by.
I was never 'wowed' by the 17-40L's sharpness, but I did enjoy the color contrast and build quality over the kit lens. For me, it wasn't worth it (and I didn't like the range on 1.6x crop body), so I replaced it with the EFS 10-22mm.
Hi Marc,
Congratulations on your purchase of a fine L lens.
I recommend that you take your lens out and do some real shooting with it. The 17-40 is a fine lens. Don't get caught up in the hype of "is my copy sharp" that plagues this forum. The 17-40 and 70-200 that you have make a great team, take them out and enjoy them.
I did the same sort of tests when I got my 17-40L, vs the 18-55 (mk1) and got pretty much the same results as you . HOWEVER, in real world shooting the 17-40L generally gave better results, specifically the colours, flare resistance etc. There were fewer colour banding issues (bright sky) as well.
Go shoot some real world shots, and if you can't see the difference, send the 17-40L back, and keep your kit lens
Thanks for all your replies! I'll keep it and make some "real" shots with it soon! It just was some kind of anti climax when I did sharpening tests with it...
Cogitech: the pictures are crops all from the center. I've marked a spot on the wall where i've focussed all the time.
p.1 #10 · test: 17-40L vs 18-55mkII vs 50mm1.8mkII
I don't doubt that the 17-40 is a better lens than the kit lens in many ways, but I find my kit lens does a pretty good job. I am usually very pleased with the results. I have had some flare issues with it on occassion, and sometimes I find some CA, but I bet the 17-40 can flare and have CA also. The reason I still use my kit lens is that for a zoom it seems OK. I would rather spend my limited funds on fast primes right now. My 50 1.8 has ruined me. My main complaint on the kit lens is that it is built so poorly, but that is how they make it so cheap. It is a bit embarrassing in a room full of people with L lenses, but not enough so for me to buy a new lens just to feel better about myself in that way.
Having said all this, I would still rather have the 17-40 than my kit lens. Just now enough to spend the cash on it right now.
p.1 #11 · test: 17-40L vs 18-55mkII vs 50mm1.8mkII
I did a similar test with my kit lens and the 17-40L at many combinations
of focal length and aperature. I also did some real-world shooting.
My results showed CA with the 17-40L -- maybe a little better than
the kit lens, but not much. The barrel distortion of the L was much less
than the kit lens at the widest focal length. That was it's main advantage.
Sharpness ( or relative lack, thereof) was about the same for each lens.
I was disappointed and sent the 17-40L back to Amazon promptly. The
ability to return easily was why I bought from them in the first place.
Why bother to keep the lens? $700 for a lens that you don't feel is
sharper than your $80 kit lens? Nope! I now have a sharp copy of
the 24-70L that, while not having as wide a field of view, still works as
a walk-around lens for me, and gives great results. Did I mention it
is sharp?
If you go to sell it on the used board, people will want to know if it's a
sharp copy. Why burden yourself with hanging on to a marginal copy?
Just my opinion,
Tim
Edited by trumpet_guy on Aug 16, 2006 at 12:10 AM GMT
p.1 #13 · test: 17-40L vs 18-55mkII vs 50mm1.8mkII
I'll add that some folks seem to have great copies of the 17-40L,
so if you find one it should be a great lens. The guy who sold me
my 24-70L said his 17-40L is amazingly good.
I still didn't think it was good enough for the money,
but it would be very useable.
Another interesting test. Aside from the obvious CA and the slightly warmer color cast of the kit lens, the sharpness seems almost identical! I'm getting happier and happier with my own kit lens now even though I never use it anymore
p.1 #17 · test: 17-40L vs 18-55mkII vs 50mm1.8mkII
same result happened to me when i received my 16-35L, both produced the same result (or 18-55 produced warmer colour which looked sharper in my eyes), my kit produced very very sharp pictures at 18 to 35mm (very comparable to 16-35L, but at 40 and above it's very very soft)
do i sell my 16-35L? nope, because i need 2.8 aperture for indoor shoot, and believe or not my 16-35L is the most used lens (while it is my least fav lens because its not as sharp as "others")
p.1 #18 · test: 17-40L vs 18-55mkII vs 50mm1.8mkII
I've decided to return the lens. It didn't give me the kick I got from the 70-200 f4. I wanted a real upgrade from my 18-55 mkII, but it was only the USM and build quality that was better. That, for 700 euro is a lot of money. Maybe I should go for an UWA...
I know the feeling. The 18-55 can be a good companion - small, light and a good quality.