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

[kiwi2]

Just managed to get a copy!

External built quality looks like an L but once you play with it, u will realize it's not an L. Zoom ring is stiffer than the 17-40mmL. The L's is so smooth when u turn it. The 17-55IS zoom ring feels heavy when u turn at the wide 17mm end to 20+mm. And the manual focus ring is less rugged. But other than that, no complaints!

Optically, not bad so far. Sharp even wide.

Zplus, I know I've heard people complaining about the flare and vignetting. Mine doesn't show. Maybe I got a good copy?? I shot close to a light source and I must say flare is well-controlled. Unless I point head on into the light then I observe some flare. Then again most lenses will probably exhibit that too.

Will do more tests...

One thing's for sure.. No more primes for me!

 

[Zplus]

Just managed to get a copy!

External built quality looks like an L but once you play with it, u will realize it's not an L. Zoom ring is stiffer than the 17-40mmL. The L's is so smooth when u turn it. The 17-55IS zoom ring feels heavy when u turn at the wide 17mm end to 20+mm. And the manual focus ring is less rugged. But other than that, no complaints!

Optically, not bad so far. Sharp even wide.

Zplus, I know I've heard people complaining about the flare and vignetting. Mine doesn't show. Maybe I got a good copy?? I shot close to a light source and I must say flare is well-controlled. Unless I point head on into the light then I observe some flare. Then again most lenses will probably exhibit that too.

Will do more tests...

One thing's for sure.. No more primes for me!

Hehehe... try a street scene late evening wide open with a street lamp nearby (which is not directional light and so some would go straight into your lens). You'd get the flare. That is the flare that most people are talking about. Other than that, no flare.

For vignetting, try a late evening scene also. Wide open, f2.8 evening sky - that nice dark blue light. You'd get darker blue corners. But like I said... if you dont look for it, you'd probably not notice it.

The problems are probably overblown. Its there but not really noticeable unless you look out for it. That said, I am keeping the lens. Its really a good walkabout lens. Also ditto about primes... this baby is razor sharp.

 

[CreaXion]

Hehehe... try a street scene late evening wide open with a street lamp nearby (which is not directional light and so some would go straight into your lens). You'd get the flare. That is the flare that most people are talking about. Other than that, no flare.

For vignetting, try a late evening scene also. Wide open, f2.8 evening sky - that nice dark blue light. You'd get darker blue corners. But like I said... if you dont look for it, you'd probably not notice it.

The problems are probably overblown. Its there but not really noticeable unless you look out for it. That said, I am keeping the lens. Its really a good walkabout lens. Also ditto about primes... this baby is razor sharp.

All of you are making me jealous liao. As I dun shoot in raw for events, this is really making me jealous cause my F4L is still relatively very much softer than what is shown abt the new lens

 

[ianpaice]

Looks like the winner is the 17 -55. But then we cannot say that the 17 -40 is overhyped becos it is clearly a very good lens too at a very affordable price with the L built and quality.


Questions:

1. Since these are wide angles and used mainly for landscape (Typically shoot at f8 or smaller), do we really need F2.8? (I never thought anyone will shoot at 17mm focal length indoor except at weddings- and then there is flash to increase shutter speeds)

2. Even if really shoot at f2.8 with IS, come evening time and low light, still can get clear shots without shakes? Assuming a night landscape shot at 2 seconds, can the IS eradicate shakes enough? Wouldnt a tripod still be necessary?

 

[CreaXion]

Looks like the winner is the 17 -55. But then we cannot say that the 17 -40 is overhyped becos it is clearly a very good lens too at a very affordable price with the L built and quality.


Questions:

1. Since these are wide angles and used mainly for landscape (Typically shoot at f8 or smaller), do we really need F2.8? (I never thought anyone will shoot at 17mm focal length indoor except at weddings- and then there is flash to increase shutter speeds)

2. Even if really shoot at f2.8 with IS, come evening time and low light, still can get clear shots without shakes? Assuming a night landscape shot at 2 seconds, can the IS eradicate shakes enough? Wouldnt a tripod still be necessary?

My personal understanding is this. Nightscapes must die die use tripod in order get nice sharpness of the street lights. Or else, it is just another pic.

 

[kiwi2]

Hi Zplus,

Will try the situations u mentioned. Then again, I suspect the flare might also happen with other wide angle zooms, such as the 17-40L. Flare, barrel distortions and vignetting are more prone in such lenses. The 24-85mm I used to have also had flare issues but only in certain instances. Yes, I agree that all these problems have been overblown. Think sometimes people expect to have ideal lenses which can never exist.

CreaXion...Buy buy buy! :bsmilie: Is the 17-40L really considerably softer than the 17-55? I love my 17-40L. It didn't disappoint and optics is very good. Can't bear to let it go but seems pointless that I have 2 overlapping lenses now. Maybe keep it and wait till FF DSLR becomes affordable? :bsmilie:

 

[CreaXion]

Hi Zplus,

Will try the situations u mentioned. Then again, I suspect the flare might also happen with other wide angle zooms, such as the 17-40L. Flare, barrel distortions and vignetting are more prone in such lenses. The 24-85mm I used to have also had flare issues but only in certain instances. Yes, I agree that all these problems have been overblown. Think sometimes people expect to have ideal lenses which can never exist.

CreaXion...Buy buy buy! :bsmilie: Is the 17-40L really considerably softer than the 17-55? I love my 17-40L. It didn't disappoint and optics is very good. Can't bear to let it go but seems pointless that I have 2 overlapping lenses now. Maybe keep it and wait till FF DSLR becomes affordable? :bsmilie:

If u are a Nikon user before, you will know what is sharp. F4L is still very soft in comparison with D70 images fitted on a Sigma 18 -50. The images shown by the 17-55 images reminded me of my D70 images. That is why I am still maintaining two systems. Exploiting the strength of both systems. Both brands have their strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.

 

[USM]

If u are a Nikon user before, you will know what is sharp. F4L is still very soft in comparison with D70 images fitted on a Sigma 18 -50. The images shown by the 17-55 images reminded me of my D70 images. That is why I am still maintaining two systems. Exploiting the strength of both systems. Both brands have their strengths and weaknesses in my opinion.

Care to post a photo to illustrate the softness of the 17-40L comparing with the Sigma 18-50mm? :think:

 

[CreaXion]

Care to post a photo to illustrate the softness of the 17-40L comparing with the Sigma 18-50mm? :think:

Unable to post leh because the clubsnap gallery refuse to allow me upload photos. Keep telling me exceed file size limit. Care to share with me why. Before that no problem.

I forgot to include 1 thing though. The sigma's 18 - 50's bokeh does not look natural to me in comparison with the F4L 17 - 40. However, my F4L 70 - 200 in much sharper in comparison with F4L 17 - 40mm. I have already turned my 30D to the sharpest settings

 

[CreaXion]

Forgot to add something. I just bought EF2 50 mm 1.8. The colour and sharpness is also much sharper than my 17 - 40. Is this normal?

Even my developer is asking why the difference between the two images are quite great. Image on my 50mm lens is much more sharper and crispier.

 

[NightZ88]

Forgot to add something. I just bought EF2 50 mm 1.8. The colour and sharpness is also much sharper than my 17 - 40. Is this normal?

Even my developer is asking why the difference between the two images are quite great. Image on my 50mm lens is much more sharper and crispier.

perhaps u've a bad copy of e 17-40 f4L? datz probably y e difference between e sigma 18-50 and a L glass is like heaven and earth.. but well, i :dunno: . still savin to get e 17-40.. den will do comparison wif my 50mm f1.8. so far optically, my L glass (70-200f4L) beats e 50mm f1.8 hands down..

 

[varf]

Hehehe... try a street scene late evening wide open with a street lamp nearby (which is not directional light and so some would go straight into your lens). You'd get the flare. That is the flare that most people are talking about.

like this?



two lamps just outside of the frame on the right.

 

[kiwi2]

Just did some more informal indoor tests on the 17-55mm with 20D.

At f/2.8:

Sharp at centre and nearby periphery. Soft particularly at the corners. Slight chromatic aberration also.

Vignetting! Yes, I finally noticed it! Quite obvious but I believe it is more obvious on certain occasions -- depending on what u shoot. Clears up at f/4.

Corners still slightly soft at f/4 but considerably better than at f/2.8. Improves by f/5.6 and above.


For the 17-40L:

17mm:

At f/4, sharp centre, soft at the corners but not as bad as the 17-55 at f/2.8. At f/5.6, reasonably sharp at corners.

28mm above:

Overall sharpness impressive wide open. Even better at f/5.6 and above.


Barrel distortions:

Obvious in the 17-55 but expected. The 17-40L is more severe. Straight lines curve noticeably at 17mm!

Hmm, overall, I won't nitpick all the bad features. Practical shooting differs a lot from doing such tests at home.

Overall, aperture for aperture, given different images taken with the 17-40L and 17-55, I can't tell them apart. But many have said the 17-55 is comparable or beats many L zooms. Maybe that's having done more detailed tests which me tinks may not be practical at all in real shooting.

Have to decide what u want to shoot and then buy the appropriate lens.

IMHO,

If you hardly shoot low light and have other faster zooms or primes, think u might get a 1D series or FF body soon, then save yourself many hundred $ and get the 17-40L. Better zoom ring than the 17-55, slightly smaller and lighter.

If you want versatility, all-round lens without the hassle of worrying when u need to change lenses or own faster primes, then 17-55 is the one.

 

[kiwi2]

Forgot to add something. I just bought EF2 50 mm 1.8. The colour and sharpness is also much sharper than my 17 - 40. Is this normal?

Even my developer is asking why the difference between the two images are quite great. Image on my 50mm lens is much more sharper and crispier.

Something's amiss... I would like to pit my 17-40L with your Sigma 18-50 on D70. ;p

Wow, u own 2 systems like dat very siong on your budget and me tinks not practical at all.

 

[Zplus]

Here are some samples of vignetting and flare. Its a good lens but gotta know its characteristics if you are using it. Like all lens.

Vignetting

EF-S 17-55 at 17mm Manual f2.8 1/60 ISO800

This was taken in the evening sky. Vignetting occurs when aperture is max and at wide. You can either zoom in a little or step aperture down a little to reduce the vignetting.

Flare

EF-S 17-55 at 17mm AV f3.2 1/13 ISO800

Flare happens when light goes straight into the lens. This shot was just a snap over my head and so the street lamp happens to shine brightly in the frame - causing the lens flare.

These 2 examples are pretty extreme. Most of the time the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS performs above my expectations for a non-L. Although the price is pretty steep.

 

[Zplus]

Here are 2 shots where the IS really saves the day. Some jpg compression can be seen in the first pic becoz I had to reduce the file size to fit into Clubsnap's 100kb limit for uploading.

EF-S 17-55 at 23mm AV f2.8 1/15 ISO1600

Last surviving gas powered street lamps in Hong Kong.

EF-S 17-55 at 55mm M f2.8 1/6 ISO800

The famous statue at the Avenue of Stars in Hong Kong. No way I can handhold a lens without IS at 1/6 seconds.

Did I say I love this lens? Yeah, its really a very good walk about lens. For me at least.

 

[jcho]

Very nice example and I love IS too

 

[CreaXion]

perhaps u've a bad copy of e 17-40 f4L? datz probably y e difference between e sigma 18-50 and a L glass is like heaven and earth.. but well, i :dunno: . still savin to get e 17-40.. den will do comparison wif my 50mm f1.8. so far optically, my L glass (70-200f4L) beats e 50mm f1.8 hands down..

That is the interesting thing. My F4L 70 - 200 can produced heavenly images which beats the 50mm. But my F4L 17 - 40 cannot leh

 

[shinken]

However, my F4L 70 - 200 in much sharper in comparison with F4L 17 - 40mm. I have already turned my 30D to the sharpest settings

Turn the sharpness settings to neutral position and try again. The 70-200 F4 is sharp, but not significantly sharper than 17-40. A good copy of 17-40 is darn blurdie sharp. Mine is ok, but still sharp enough.

If it still isn't satisfactory, send in to Canon and request for calibration. Bring ur body too. Be prepared for them to take some time.

 

[CreaXion]

Turn the sharpness settings to neutral position and try again. The 70-200 F4 is sharp, but not significantly sharper than 17-40. A good copy of 17-40 is darn blurdie sharp. Mine is ok, but still sharp enough.

If it still isn't satisfactory, send in to Canon and request for calibration. Bring ur body too. Be prepared for them to take some time.

If what you are saying is correct, that means I have to send in my lens liao. The difference in images between my 70 - 200 and 17 - 40 is very significant. By the way, is the EF 50mm 1.8 supposed to have better image quality than the 17 - 40L?