50mm 1.8 prime vs 17-40mm 4L

[duhduh83]

The variances of lenses among similar models can be great. That's why sometimes, you get quite conflicting reviews on the web. There is no guarantee that a L lens is sharp. However what you supposed to get is better built, better AF and smaller variance / better cpk when it comes to optical performance.

Test before you buy, or at least have a return policy. You can always call any shop if they allow testing.

so according to you, buying any brand lenses have a probability of getting bad copy just that L lens have a smaller probability..... wow, i wonder if the shop keeper would allow me to try all their stock to see which one is a good copy??? then how can canon assure us with their quality maintenance.... :dunno:

 

[duhduh83]

ok i was thinking again.... since sigma 15-30 is not for FF camera. So, how about the following comparisons:

1. Tokina 20-35 f2.8
2. Tokina 19-35 f3.5-4.5
3. Tamron 17-35 f2.8
4. Canon 17-40 f4L

again i put no 5 as optional
5. Canon 50mm 1.8 prime

someone tell me about this pls

 

[freelancer]

so 17-40L is not sharp enough???
i think i'll stick to 50mm for the time being then...... gotta test out the 17-40L
just wondering if any shops will allow testing without buying..... :dunno: :dunno:

Let me share with you a different view. I had and sold a 50/1.8 two years back coz it did not support the distance information for E-TTL2. Recently I bought another 50/1.8 and sold it off within a few days coz I noticed that the focus accuracy of the 50/1.8 does drift a bit from F2.8 and wider, something my other lenses do not exhibit. This has to do with the AF motor design of the 50/1.8.

Yes, the 50/1.8 is pretty sharp but is sharpness all there is ? The color and contrast from the 17-40 just makes nicer images when printed. After F5.6 the 17-40 is pretty sharp and comparable, at least to my needs.

 

[syke]

so according to you, buying any brand lenses have a probability of getting bad copy just that L lens have a smaller probability..... wow, i wonder if the shop keeper would allow me to try all their stock to see which one is a good copy??? then how can canon assure us with their quality maintenance.... :dunno:

Yes of course. No manufacturer will promise 100% repeatability. If they can, there will be no need for service centres.

Of course canon have some form of spec limits to work around with. Question is how tight are the specs?

e.g. A L lens hovering around the higher/lower spec limits might be worse off in reality compared to a non L lens that right smack on the nominal value.

 

[Dunnomuch]

so 17-40L is not sharp enough???
i think i'll stick to 50mm for the time being then...... gotta test out the 17-40L
just wondering if any shops will allow testing without buying..... :dunno: :dunno:

Sigma and Tamron make a 17-35 F2.8 zoom that is a direct competitor to the 17-40L that canon makes. both the 3rd party zooms are faster (bigger constant aperture), but have a slightly shorter zoom range. sharpness is very close, and only build quality and colour separates them. IMO sigma colour is very close to Canon and Tamron has a slightly different colour but it's still nice and not a big deal IMO.

I used exclusively canon lenses until only recently. I got my SigmaEX 24-70 DG Macro and i really like it a lot. to me it represents very good value for money, even though the 24-70L is still a better lens overall. it's just a case of whether you're willing to spend the money for the L.

if you're shooting events the L is often preferred over a 3rd party lens in terms of focusing speed. the L also has a nice smooth zoom ring compared to some 3rd party lenses. of course if these don't really bother you a 3rd party lens should really be considered.

if you're on a low budget but you still want to learn, then the sigma or tamron 17-35 makes a very compelling case and you can still afford a 50 f1.8 prime.

the wide zoom will allow you to experiment with perspectives, distortion, angles and how they affect the picture, and the prime makes a very good training tool for your eye to "see" the frame since you have to zoom with your feet.

if you want to learn NOW, buy what you can afford. If you want to collect the lenses and learn at your own pace, then save for the L zoom or nice prime or whatever you have in mind.

personally i like the upgrade path because on one hand i lose a little bit more cash changing lens for lens, but the experience i get is not quantifiable with money. take the time to find out how much you shoot with that focal range before you buy a lens.

for me my 17-40L was my first L zoom, and i have to say i don't use that range a lot. i use the 24-200mm range much more, and i may have been better off buying a 24-70L and a 17-35 3rd party instead of theother way around, but now that i have a 3rd party midrange zoom, I can't say i am unhappy enough to make the change, or if i am unhappy at all with my 3rd party midrange.

 

[freelancer]

The Sigma EX HSM lenses are worth the money for the quality you get. Only thing is that your Canon flash ETTL-2 would not be able to factor the distance information into the flash power calculations

 

[djork]

Just a question, which one is sharper? the 50mm prime or the 17-40mm zoom? The price is a huge difference so, i needa ask anyone who owns the two lenses tell me which is sharper...

thanks!

i think it's more appropriate to compare a prime to a prime.

 

[duhduh83]

hmmm.... 3rd party 17-35 is alot more cheaper and has a larger aperture than the L lens.... i think this is a major factor..... the only consideration now for me is whether the quality difference of the third party deviate alot from the L lens, if its only a slight and minor difference than of course I would go for the third party. it makes me wonder then how come the 17-40 can become an L lens since the thrid party lenses are equivalently good. maybe its just because of a faster auto-focus....

 

[freelancer]

duhduh83, Even if a third party lens is say a f2.8 wide open it does not mean it *can* be as sharp as the f4 Canon L lens at aperture of f4. For wides, I am not sure whether it is sometimes worth the loads of more money than to just use a higher ISO and then correct for noise during post processing. For lenses like the 85 or 135, it makes sense to look for fast aperture for the better bokeh it offers.

It is obvious that you have not played much with the Canon L glass - colors and contrast, build quality aside, are quite evident for the money paid. The question raised by someone in this discussion, how sharp do you need, is a good point in my opinion. There is a lot more into an image than just sharpness alone

 

[David]

duhduh,

Firstly I tink u worry too much. U must first decide on what u are going to shoot and then choose yr lens. Secondly, as many have said, it is not justified for u to compare a prime and a zoom.

U want a lens to work for u, and not spend too much time worrying too much about sharpness and all that. Unless u want to be NOT a photographer but a lens collector, or someone knowledgeble about lens specs only.

Theoretically a 50mm should be sharper than the zoom at f/4. But by how much? To justify buying the prime just bcos it's relatively sharper is naive.

Both 50mm and 17-40L are good lenses. Question is, what are u going to shoot? If u can't be decisive at this point, maybe it shows u are not enthusiastic enuff about photography and should consider getting a kit lens to try out if u like zoom. Then ask yrself at a later time what u really want. Arguing about sharpness and all that is secondary IMHO.

 

[duhduh83]

i was comparing 17-40L to 50mm cos I got limited budget and can only get one. and maybe my mentality is to buy the one that is better.... have no intention of being a glass collector... so ive got to make my decision soon.... now i just want to know how does the L lens compare to the 17-35 third party counterparts.... not really comparing the two just for the sake of specs. i would like to try wide angle cos i think i take mostly scenery but i also take portraits sometimes.....

 

[rokieto]

hmmm.... 3rd party 17-35 is alot more cheaper and has a larger aperture than the L lens.... i think this is a major factor..... the only consideration now for me is whether the quality difference of the third party deviate alot from the L lens, if its only a slight and minor difference than of course I would go for the third party. it makes me wonder then how come the 17-40 can become an L lens since the thrid party lenses are equivalently good. maybe its just because of a faster auto-focus....

17-40 L is for FF. at such wide angle it is demanding on the optics, hence more expensive to make for its performance level.
while the third party lenses are for EF-S mount (or 1.6x crop), so you are comparing on the sweet spot performance only. u can't use it on FF anyway.
or are u comparing the third party's wide angles for FF mount?

 

[n0d3]

17-40 L is for FF. at such wide angle it is demanding on the optics, hence more expensive to make for its performance level.
while the third party lenses are for EF-S mount (or 1.6x crop), so you are comparing on the sweet spot performance only. u can't use it on FF anyway.
or are u comparing the third party's wide angles for FF mount?

If you're takling about FF, the 17-40 sucks on FF bodies. Colour and contrast are still good, but if you're talking about sharpness and corner performance, the 17-40 fails to deliver.

 

[duhduh83]

If you're takling about FF, the 17-40 sucks on FF bodies. Colour and contrast are still good, but if you're talking about sharpness and corner performance, the 17-40 fails to deliver.

so u think the third party is better on FF?

 

[donkuok]

so u think the third party is better on FF?

third party is worse than canon L lens. I would say third party lens is good in centre sharpness but not on corners/borders. You need to stop down a lot more in order to achieve consistent sharpness from centre to corners as compared to canon L lens.
Recently, Canon released a new lens EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM IS. From the review, it looks better than other L lens. I wonder how much it is when it's made available in sg.

 

[freelancer]

If you're takling about FF, the 17-40 sucks on FF bodies. Colour and contrast are still good, but if you're talking about sharpness and corner performance, the 17-40 fails to deliver.

Only when you compare to wide primes and on the Canon side its marginal improvement unless you go for Zeiss or something :devil:

I have seen enough images from full frame 1DsMkII with the 17-40 and unless you pixel peep you are correct that the edge performance is slightly soft. Noticeable at 100% crops no doubt but can be corrected by some sharpening during post processing and does not show in large prints.

For example, go to this link (a good article comparing the 1DsMkII and 4x5 image resolution which is really pushing the camera and lens to its performance edge) and read why I do not share your point of view. Just because the 17-40 is relatively inexpensive does not mean it is a so so lens. In fact it is exceptional value for money as an L lens.
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

See also his experiences and equipment list to understand why I would take his expert views anytime
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Equipment.html

 

[unseen]

third party is worse than canon L lens. I would say third party lens is good in centre sharpness but not on corners/borders. You need to stop down a lot more in order to achieve consistent sharpness from centre to corners as compared to canon L lens.
Recently, Canon released a new lens EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM IS. From the review, it looks better than other L lens. I wonder how much it is when it's made available in sg.

I dare say my 18-50 f2.8 is sharper at the centers or corners than 17-40 f4 @ anytime of the day. And at any equivilant apertures. The EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM IS doesn't carry a L tag, but it carries a L price. $1800 street price.

duhduh83 => You deleted the entire thread just because I asked you to tell me where to find non genuine advice? :dunno:

 

[donkuok]

I dare say my 18-50 f2.8 is sharper at the centers or corners than 17-40 f4 @ anytime of the day. And at any equivilant apertures. The EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM IS doesn't carry a L tag, but it carries a L price. $1800 street price.

duhduh83 => You deleted the entire thread just because I asked you to tell me where to find non genuine advice? :dunno:

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is no doubt has the edge to edge sharpness. However, CA border exists at wide open.

 

[unseen]

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is no doubt has the edge to edge sharpness. However, CA border exists at wide open.

LOL dude.. if we're comparing with a slow F4 lens, we should look at F4 properties. At F4, the CA is all gone. At f2.8, anything's a bonus. And that it's as sharp as the 17-40 at F2.8, the CA can be easily removed in pp. So what if you get CA at F2.8? You can get images the F4 can't, and if you stop down to F4 you will get better images anyway.
Only down side is the marginally noisier and slower AF. 0.1s speed difference isn't going to cost me much issue.
Costs $800 (heard the price went up to $900) it's still cheaper to get it new. The 17-70 2.8-4 is apparently also quite sharp. at $600 only. Never used this b4 though.

 

[duhduh83]

I dare say my 18-50 f2.8 is sharper at the centers or corners than 17-40 f4 @ anytime of the day. And at any equivilant apertures. The EFS 17-55 f2.8 USM IS doesn't carry a L tag, but it carries a L price. $1800 street price.

duhduh83 => You deleted the entire thread just because I asked you to tell me where to find non genuine advice? :dunno:

replied already.... too bad u missed it. i thought i closed the thread because i already found the answer. btw, deleting thread is different from closing thread? Im also puzzled. how to close a thread without deleting it?