Anyone ditch EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and
- Thread starter Vin
- Start date
- Status
Can you elaborate what quality you find better in the L Lens? I assume you're comparing it to 17-40.
Thanks.
charlesleong
New Member
yes, please share your experience, and equipment setup.
it's widely acknowledged that the 17-55 is much superior to the 17-40 on a APS-C body
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=2 for 17-55
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1 for 17-40 (you'll find that the good reviews all come on FF or APS-H bodies)
should have one more option:"have 17-40L and never considered 17-55"contrast and colour is something that is almost impossible to replicate in photoshop. Canon L lenses, along with zeiss and leicas, are fantastic when shot to its full strength.
there are much better examples but this is my humble tourist shot on a 40D
LOL pardon me, but you really don't know how to use photoshop, do you?
:bsmilie:
I actually ditched my 17-55mm 2.8 for 24-105mm F4L...
During a shoot of an event, where i need to capture a large group of delegate from a long shoot. When I zoom into both pictures for both lens...
1) L lens details is much sharper where 17-55 went quite blur...
2) The Colours of L lens is much nicer...
I have used 17-55mm for 1 year and loved it, until the comparison...
During a shoot of an event, where i need to capture a large group of delegate from a long shoot. When I zoom into both pictures for both lens...
1) L lens details is much sharper where 17-55 went quite blur...
2) The Colours of L lens is much nicer...
I have used 17-55mm for 1 year and loved it, until the comparison...
LOL I'm interested to know the setting for the 2 lenses
Were you shooting the large group of delegates with F16, F8, F4, or F2.8?
Which 2 bodies were you using?
Those are crucial points you left out.
heh I've realised that alot of photographers mistaken shallower depth of field for the "sharpness" of the lens. :bsmilie:
Using about F6.3 for both using the same camera, 30D.
raymond350
New Member
Personally, feel that the 17-55mm is a little bit better than 17-40. This is supported by tests done by photozone.com and slrgear.com, which has the data to show.
I have taken some shots to compare below, all 3 images at same exposure, taken by 350D, focus is at the lampost in the middle of image.
This provides a rough idea of the performance of the lenses, for those who want to pixel peep. Judging from the carplate no, it is quite clear the 17-55mm is sharper at f/4.0.
Having said that, both lenses are still very good in my opinion, just a pity that the 17-55mm not compatible on FF cam.
17-55mm f/2.8
100% crop
17-55mm f/4.0
100% crop
I have taken some shots to compare below, all 3 images at same exposure, taken by 350D, focus is at the lampost in the middle of image.
This provides a rough idea of the performance of the lenses, for those who want to pixel peep. Judging from the carplate no, it is quite clear the 17-55mm is sharper at f/4.0.
Having said that, both lenses are still very good in my opinion, just a pity that the 17-55mm not compatible on FF cam.
17-55mm f/2.8
100% crop
17-55mm f/4.0
100% crop
Last edited:
raymond350
New Member
17-40 f/4.0
100% crop
100% crop
the 17-55 is sharper than the 17-40L at similar apertures
this is a known fact
in fact at f2.8, it is just a bit less than than the 17-40 at f4
the reason why it isnt marketed as an L lens despite its identical glass elements is for marketting purposes
Canon is afraid professionals will turn to the cheaper bodies with this "L" walkabout
u will notice that it has 2.8 + USM + IS and L images
the FF however only has 4.0 + USM + IS + L for the 24-105
this is a known fact
in fact at f2.8, it is just a bit less than than the 17-40 at f4
the reason why it isnt marketed as an L lens despite its identical glass elements is for marketting purposes
Canon is afraid professionals will turn to the cheaper bodies with this "L" walkabout
u will notice that it has 2.8 + USM + IS and L images
the FF however only has 4.0 + USM + IS + L for the 24-105
Last edited:
charlesleong
New Member
Canon doesn't brand EF-S lenses with the L label. it's as simple as that. however, they do produce quality EF-S lenses (17-55, 10-22)
EOS Revolution
Member
No.. owned both, the 10-22 build is abit better
same conclusion here.
the IS probably helps getting sharper shots - that is... for folks that need it.
colour and contrast for canon L lenses, I'd rank alongside leica's and zeiss' - each has its particular strengths. sharpness and bokeh to a certain extent is overrated.
for those who prefer only things that can be measured, here are more technical analysis from photozone.de. Note that you are comparing an EF-S lens to to a full frame lens on a cropped sensor body.
Lens Build
[EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS ]
19 elements in 12 groups including three aspherical elements plus two UD (ultra-low dispersion) elements.
[EF 17-40mm f/4 L]The optical construction is made of 12 elements in 9 groups, including one SUD (Super Ultra-low Dispersion) elements and three aspherical elements (one molded and two replica asphericals) so it's quite obvious that Canon has put quite some efforts into the design.
Distortions
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS exhibited average distortion figures for a lens in this class. As expected there're relatively pronounced barrel distortions (2%) at 17mm which even out very shortly beyond. At 24mm there're already marginal pincushion distortions which increase continuously towards the long end of the zoom range (1.15%).
[for 17-40mm f/4 L] At 17mm the lens exhibits quite strong barrel distortions (~2.5%). At 24mm there're very slight barrel distortions whereas at 40mm the problem is negligible.
Vignetting
The EF-S 17-55mm is a reduced image circle lens and these lenses tend to produce higher vignetting figures. Unfortunately the lens is no exception to the rule. At f/2.8 the lens shows very pronounced vignetting around 1EV at all focal lengths. Stopping down helps to reduce the problem and from f/4 it's reasonably well controlled. However, it is a weak spot of this lens.
APS-C DSLRs such as the EOS 350D can take advantage of the sweet spot of full format lenses so vignetting is no big issue with the 17-40mm f/4L here. Surprisingly vignetting is slightly more pronounced at the long end with may be an effect originating in the sensor characteristics.
MTF (resolution)
Unlike most other dedicated APS-C zooms the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS delivered a very impressive performance throughout the zoom range. In fact the center resolution of the lens is among the very best tested to date (incl. fix-focals) and it probably exceeds the limits of the 8 MP sensor of the EOS 350D (used for testing). The lens is also capable to deliver corner to corner sharpness though there's (naturally) a little penalty at the image borders. However, even the extreme corners stay in very good territory and stopping down helps to lift the figures even further. There's a marginal drop in performance at 55mm at f/2.8 but even here there's little to worry about.The lens showed a slight degree of field curvature at 17mm.
The EF 17-40mm f/4 L showed an excellent performance in the lab. It's quite safe to assume that the peak performance in the center exceeded the resolution limits of the 8 megapixel sensor of the EOS 350D. The borders are very good though stopping down a little helps to lift up the resolution almost to center quality. It is worth to mention that the extreme borders did not fall apart like e.g. with the Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX - that's a plus when using a full frame lens on a DSLR with reduced image circle. The performance peaks around f/8. Thereafter diffraction effects introduce a negative effect (unavoidable).
can you quote the source that describes both lenses having identical glass elements ?
perhaps. allong with a lot of L-lens, Zeiss, and Leica lens owners.
why don't you post and share your L-lens quality photoshopped works
debated a lot of times... haha anytime. i ditch f4 for a f2.8 anytime.
personally, i feel 17-55mm is the best walkabout lens for crop bodies; good range.
it's like 24-70mm on a FF.
Well of course some people just like the 17-40mm 'L'; enable their minds to think they can take better photos.
be happy with what u choose. =D
some test results.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review
personally, i feel 17-55mm is the best walkabout lens for crop bodies; good range.
it's like 24-70mm on a FF.
Well of course some people just like the 17-40mm 'L'; enable their minds to think they can take better photos.
be happy with what u choose. =D
some test results.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review
Sorry to throw in another spin to this... From what I read so far, the 50D will show off the limits of some EF-S lenses. Just not sure if it will include the 17-55. The 1.6x crop sensors are getting very good. I think the technology has advance and we cannot treat all APS-C sensors the same. It is sort of expected as DSLR is continuously seeing improvement in technology. It seems to me, how good one judge a lens to be may depend very much on how well match the lens is to a particular camera body.
I am looking to purchase either the 40D or the 50D matched with a zoom lens in this range. This 2 lenses are exactly what I am looking at. After my own research, I am of the opinion that you cannot put the latest 50D sensor along side previous crop sensors. the 50D sensor places a lot more demand on good optics. It rewards you when you match it with good lenses. Otherwise you will be better off with the 40D. Judging by the improvements trends that Canon has been making, it seems like I would need very good lenses even if I decide to stay with APS-C sensors bodies. The replacements for 50D and 450D is not going backwards. The differences in lens quality is going to show up even more so in the future generations of crop sensors camera. Has anyone compared the 17-40L and the 17-55 EF-S on the 50D? Is there any pictures you can post for comparison? I am especially interested in low light photography and how shadows turns up on the 50D with these 2 lenses.
I am looking to purchase either the 40D or the 50D matched with a zoom lens in this range. This 2 lenses are exactly what I am looking at. After my own research, I am of the opinion that you cannot put the latest 50D sensor along side previous crop sensors. the 50D sensor places a lot more demand on good optics. It rewards you when you match it with good lenses. Otherwise you will be better off with the 40D. Judging by the improvements trends that Canon has been making, it seems like I would need very good lenses even if I decide to stay with APS-C sensors bodies. The replacements for 50D and 450D is not going backwards. The differences in lens quality is going to show up even more so in the future generations of crop sensors camera. Has anyone compared the 17-40L and the 17-55 EF-S on the 50D? Is there any pictures you can post for comparison? I am especially interested in low light photography and how shadows turns up on the 50D with these 2 lenses.
If you have not bought the 17-40 yet, just get the 17-55. With a constant aperture of 2.8 and the IS, you've got a winner there. It might not be a L lens, but the inner elements are the same as that of an L lens. Go read reviews on the more popular sites and you'd get more opinion on it. =)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked