Canon New 17-55/F2.8 IS USM VS 17-40/F4 L?

[CreaXion]

1 question though. Can I assume that the distortion at 17mm for F4L is lesser than 17 - 55? The reason why I am assuming this is because usually a wider gap in the range would usually cause more distortion at wide angle.

For events, I would prefer a short range lens without distortion because sometimes, you really have to shoot at wide angle. However, the 17 - 55 range is gd provided that at wide angle, the distortion is not much.

 

[kiwi2]

Tnx thw. Shame on Canon. After spending so much on designing a fine lens, I'm sure they know something about the flare, but they won't even provide a relatively cheap hood simply bcos it's not an L lens??

F5user, U mean the contrast on 17-40 is better than the 17-55? I havent heard this though.

CreaXion, yah, I have to agree with u. The pic posted by DieHardCanonUser is v sharp. Since it's unprocessed as stated, I am impressed. Of cos for RAW I can't get this kind. If that pic was taken in jpg, I'm interested to know what the settings are. Hope DHCU can elaborate? Tnx.

Actually, I'm quite puzzled. B4 the 17-40 came out, I looked at its MTF and I'm not impressed. The curves don't look like they were from an L. But heck, in PRACTICE, my 17-40L is excellent IMHO. Think many got good results too. For those into MTFs, look at the one for the 17-55. Darn impressive. Better than the 17-40.

Then again, like I always tell myself, MTFs are not the 100% real world thingy.

 

[CreaXion]

Tnx thw. Shame on Canon. After spending so much on designing a fine lens, I'm sure they know something about the flare, but they won't even provide a relatively cheap hood simply bcos it's not an L lens??

F5user, U mean the contrast on 17-40 is better than the 17-55? I havent heard this though.

CreaXion, yah, I have to agree with u. The pic posted by DieHardCanonUser is v sharp. Since it's unprocessed as stated, I am impressed. Of cos for RAW I can't get this kind. If that pic was taken in jpg, I'm interested to know what the settings are. Hope DHCU can elaborate? Tnx.

Actually, I'm quite puzzled. B4 the 17-40 came out, I looked at its MTF and I'm not impressed. The curves don't look like they were from an L. But heck, in PRACTICE, my 17-40L is excellent IMHO. Think many got good results too. For those into MTFs, look at the one for the 17-55. Darn impressive. Better than the 17-40.

Then again, like I always tell myself, MTFs are not the 100% real world thingy.

Pardon my ignorance, what is MTF?

 

[jdredd]

Pardon my ignorance, what is MTF?

its a test chart which shows contrast/ sharpness at different apertures..

its funny, over on Nikon forum, they are discussing their own 17-55 equivalent, which costs $400 more... but there doesnt seem to be anywhere near the same controversy.

 

[kiwi2]

For those interested, here are the MTFs:

17-55 IS Wide:

17-55 IS Tele:

17-40L Wide:

17-40L Tele:

See the differences?? :bigeyes:

 

[Denosha]

Hmmm... I don't seem to be facing any of the flaring issues with the 17-55 that some people seem to be talking about and no, i don't have the hood either. With proper flare avoidance techniques that one would use with any lens, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I think much of the controversy stems from this being one of the first EF-S lens that while not an L, is priced like one and is said to perform like one. People just need to get over the mental hurdle that a non-L CAN outperform an L. The "L" designation is just a branding tag!

 

[boy2man]

I totally agree with what you said .... Very true.

Hmmm... I don't seem to be facing any of the flaring issues with the 17-55 that some people seem to be talking about and no, i don't have the hood either. With proper flare avoidance techniques that one would use with any lens, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I think much of the controversy stems from this being one of the first EF-S lens that while not an L, is priced like one and is said to perform like one. People just need to get over the mental hurdle that a non-L CAN outperform an L. The "L" designation is just a branding tag!

 

[CreaXion]

Hmmm... I don't seem to be facing any of the flaring issues with the 17-55 that some people seem to be talking about and no, i don't have the hood either. With proper flare avoidance techniques that one would use with any lens, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I think much of the controversy stems from this being one of the first EF-S lens that while not an L, is priced like one and is said to perform like one. People just need to get over the mental hurdle that a non-L CAN outperform an L. The "L" designation is just a branding tag!

I am just wondering whether the flare issue is due to the control of the aperture?

 

[thw]

F5user, U mean the contrast on 17-40 is better than the 17-55? I havent heard this though.

Actually, I'm quite puzzled. B4 the 17-40 came out, I looked at its MTF and I'm not impressed. The curves don't look like they were from an L. But heck, in PRACTICE, my 17-40L is excellent IMHO. Think many got good results too. For those into MTFs, look at the one for the 17-55. Darn impressive. Better than the 17-40.

F5user raised a number of good points, but that one on contrast is not correct. The 17-55 has superb contrast. :lovegrin:

However, since I shoot RAW, I cannot care less about contrast and color. :bsmilie:

As for MTFs, remember these results are based on theoretical calculations. Measurements based on actual samples are more important.

Another thing to watch out for: contrast vs resolution. Many people seem to be easily confused between the two. Contrasty lenses sometimes give the false impression that they have very good resolution, when that may not be true. A good example is the Tokina 12-24 lens. Incredibly contrasty, but actual resolution is really not as good as the Canon/Sigma equivalents. This perhaps is why the 17-40 f/4L leaves a very good impression on users. :bsmilie:

Here are some real world pictures that show how good even the 'lowly' 17-85 IS lens is when compared to the 17-40 f/4L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53310328/original. Notice how contrasty the 17-40 lens is? As long as you have a good copy of the 17-85 (including good focus calibration), you'll be surprised how wonderful it is.

And here are some 4-way test results: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/resolutioncontrast. It shows why the new 17-55 IS easily trashes the 17-40 in terms of resolution and contrast. Even the 'cheap' Sigma 18-50 is better than this over-hyped 17-40 lens. :bigeyes:

I personally think this reviewer (lightrules) gives a very balanced and accurate picture of the advantages and disadvantages of all the lenses here.

 

[thw]

I am just wondering whether the flare issue is due to the control of the aperture?

Not very much, I'm afraid.

 

[_espn_]

I am just wondering whether the flare issue is due to the control of the aperture?

Don't shoot direct into the light, then won't flare liao.

 

[F5user]

well.. ok...

a few things i have to admit, i don't read/analyze MTF, KFC, HDB or whatever graphs as mentioned, prefering to shoot raw & print with minimal pp due to dateline issues for work. So if the 17-55 does indeed have a better read out via its graph, then good on you for buying that wonderful piece of glass..

As for my experience, i first snatched one of the two copies of the 17-55 canon released at the office around 5 months back up here in chow ang mor land, falling for the lure of a 2.8 (finally)with a nice 17-55 range for my 20d.

Shooting side by side with my 17-40 on another body, the printouts did have a rather different "feel" to them done with similar settings by my publication guy. When i'm back in berkeley, i'll try to dig out the camera/image settings to see what's up, but i do remember a rather big difference between the 2 images produced by the 2 lenses respectively, particularly for portions of the image perpendicular to the light source, that have a loss in detail. I'll try to get the copyrights cleared and drag the 2 pics out.

No i'm not a L whore, who brags and brandishes L lenses to show his/her talent. I believe the 17-55's a wonderful piece of glass which has YET to be proven in the field of a working professional. However, imho, canon has sadly limited the use of this lens due to its EF-S only mounting, which restricts most PJs to using the 20/30ds. Not that they're bad cameras, but they'll never hold up to the rigours of on field assignments compared to a 1 series.

Aiya... enuff la, being an old man, i would just go buy the 17-55 and shoot. Yes, it's going to be expensive thanks to canon's brilliant marketting strategy for its stupid new releases, and no it's never going to have the same resale as an L, but who cares? just buy and shoot.

 

[thw]

As for my experience, i first snatched one of the two copies of the 17-55 canon released at the office around 5 months back up here in chow ang mor land

Strange. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens was only available in US towards the end of April, 06.

5 months from today will mean February. Lens was only announced in PMA at that time.

 

[F5user]

Strange. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens was only available in US towards the end of April, 06.

5 months from today will mean February. Lens was only announced in PMA at that time.

lens was available to press agencies and major media networks for testing/trialing 6 - 8 months ago.

Things generally appear in the US market for testing and evaluation way before any mention of it hits PMA.

:sweatsm:

 

[TYM76]

17-55 is very sharp even wide open

Shot at 50mm at F2.8 (wide open) with IS off:
http://yokemeng.smugmug.com/gallery/1692758/1/83159811

 

[panzerpunk]

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM has 3 Aspherical lenses and 1 UD lens...

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM has 2 Aspherical lenses and 2 UD lenses

*2 UD lenses = 1 Fluorite lens

 

[mlcy85]

Hi!

as some ppl here mite know, i'm also in the dilemma between this two lens, currently have the 17-40, but haven even seen the 17-55 for myself yet... my main issue is colour saturation i suppose, and i've always been impressed with the colour richness of the 17-40. Will the 17-55 impress me as well? :dunno:

And i've read from some forums of dust particles getting into their 17-55, wonder how bad is this situation...

 

[Denosha]

I had the exact same dilemma but I took the plunge. Any regrets? None! In fact, I think the 17-55 is an all round better lens than the 17-40. Don't worry, the L-like colour is there!

Real world example:
This was shot on the 135L: http://www.sgl.per.sg/users/denosha/gallery/street/Peruvian_band_3
This was shot on the 17-55:
http://www.sgl.per.sg/users/denosha/gallery/street/Peruvian_band_6

Both are processed similarly. Not much diff is there?

Will I sell the 17-40L? Nope! 'Cos being a FF lens, it's still very useful for filter stacking on a 1.6x crop camera.

 

[biggulp]

The 17-55mm is said to be sharper or at least as sharp as most L zooms, with similar color rendition. It's actually a L in disguise but Canon decided not to market it as such. Just paint a red ring and no one would be complaining about paying $2k for some glass!

 

[Zplus]

The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS is a great lens. It extends like the EF 24-70 f2.8 L lens. Yes, dust can enter it but does not affect the image. Of course, in adverse situation (e.g. Middle East desert), the EF17-40 f4 L would be a better choice with its weather sealing. I decided on this EF-S 17-55 over the EF 17-40 becoz I wanted the f2.8 and the IS. Will probably get the EF 17-40L or EF 16-35L if I go full frame (by which time, I am sure the price will be slightly lower) or the next best offering from Canon.

The IS on a wide angle lens is pretty useful for night scenes. I used this without a tripod and was able to capture skylines at 1/8 secs shutter speed. USM is fast. f2.8 ensures better focus lock.

Good colors and contrast. Fast aperture of f2.8 and IS. What more can you ask??:dunno:

Actually, i would ask for better flare control. Without the hood, this lens can flare quite easily with a bright light source in the frame. Users of this lens would know what I mean. Also the vignetting at f2.8 is evident in late evening shots. The dark blue skies would have darker blue corners. This can be corrected in post processing but I rather leave it as it adds some character to the image. Like a LOMO.

ANyway, no time to write a complete review of this great lens. Just some points to note, if you are considering this excellant lens.