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

[kiwi2]

Hi ZPlus,

Thanks for sharing. Yah, I got some vignetting like yours at f/2.8 but I shot at a wall.

Hmm, the flare looks serious but I think other lenses will have some too given the light was directly into the lens. When I pointed my cam at an indoor lamp, I find it's really ok. So yah, that's an extreme case.

About your Duddell street. The place looks bright but how come u used ISO 1600 at 1/15? Or... Opps, I tink it's in the night...Is it? Looks like in the day or evening sunlight shining on the board.

Hmm, I'm in a dilemma now. My 17-40L is sharp and a good copy. Quite reluctant to sell it off. But I guess no point having the 17-55 and 17-40L. Was thinking of keeping it till FF sensor becomes affordable but doubt it's anytime soon.

 

[Kongo]

Saving up to upgrade from my 17-85IS to 17-55IS..

IS is becoming a critical feature for walkaround zoom lens for me, especially useful when travelling.

Some pics taken at HK too:

Only possible to shoot these handheld thanks to IS.

The first 2 shutter speed r around 1/8s, thus silky flow of water possible. If I use a prime such as the 50f1.4 instead, the effect will be very different. Will see water droplets freezed instead.. Of course, if u r willing to carry & setup a tripod, then IS or not isn't that critical.

 

[Zplus]

Hi ZPlus,

Thanks for sharing. Yah, I got some vignetting like yours at f/2.8 but I shot at a wall.

Hmm, the flare looks serious but I think other lenses will have some too given the light was directly into the lens. When I pointed my cam at an indoor lamp, I find it's really ok. So yah, that's an extreme case.

About your Duddell street. The place looks bright but how come u used ISO 1600 at 1/15? Or... Opps, I tink it's in the night...Is it? Looks like in the day or evening sunlight shining on the board.

Hmm, I'm in a dilemma now. My 17-40L is sharp and a good copy. Quite reluctant to sell it off. But I guess no point having the 17-55 and 17-40L. Was thinking of keeping it till FF sensor becomes affordable but doubt it's anytime soon.

Yeah, i guess that shot is kinda extreme.
Some other shots with lights in it did not get any lens flare.

The Duddell street was shot around midnight. Decided to use ISO1600 to include some of the background detail. Yeah, it does look like daytime/ evening. Hahahaha!

I think you should keep the 17-40 for a while if you dont need the cash. If you sell it now or later, it will still retain its second hand price. For fullframe, its still an affordable wide. The other wide option at full frame is the great 16-35mm f2.8 L - which cost even more. Also take note that the 17-40 will vignette on a FF.

Do take note that when you go FF, the 24-70mm f2.8 L is actually closer to what you are seeing now with these lens on the 1.6x crop bodies.

 

[Zplus]

Only possible to shoot these handheld thanks to IS.

The first 2 shutter speed r around 1/8s, thus silky flow of water possible. If I use a prime such as the 50f1.4 instead, the effect will be very different. Will see water droplets freezed instead.. Of course, if u r willing to carry & setup a tripod, then IS or not isn't that critical.

Yup, I agree on the IS part. Its actually pretty useful for travelling. Saves me from lugging a tripod / monopod.

 

[CreaXion]

Yeah, i guess that shot is kinda extreme.
Some other shots with lights in it did not get any lens flare.

The Duddell street was shot around midnight. Decided to use ISO1600 to include some of the background detail. Yeah, it does look like daytime/ evening. Hahahaha!

I think you should keep the 17-40 for a while if you dont need the cash. If you sell it now or later, it will still retain its second hand price. For fullframe, its still an affordable wide. The other wide option at full frame is the great 16-35mm f2.8 L - which cost even more. Also take note that the 17-40 will vignette on a FF.

Do take note that when you go FF, the 24-70mm f2.8 L is actually closer to what you are seeing now with these lens on the 1.6x crop bodies.

About the vignetting on FF like 5D, could be it due to the body more than the lens. Maybe that is why 3D is replacing 5D and it is 1.3 crop instead of ff.

 

[kencfk]

Best if Canon can come out with a 17-70/ F2.8 IS USM L.
that will be my dream lens, hehe!

 

[kiwi2]

Yeah, i guess that shot is kinda extreme.
Some other shots with lights in it did not get any lens flare.

The Duddell street was shot around midnight. Decided to use ISO1600 to include some of the background detail. Yeah, it does look like daytime/ evening. Hahahaha!

I think you should keep the 17-40 for a while if you dont need the cash. If you sell it now or later, it will still retain its second hand price. For fullframe, its still an affordable wide. The other wide option at full frame is the great 16-35mm f2.8 L - which cost even more. Also take note that the 17-40 will vignette on a FF.

Do take note that when you go FF, the 24-70mm f2.8 L is actually closer to what you are seeing now with these lens on the 1.6x crop bodies.

Hey Thanks ZPlus for the advice.

Yah, still thinking if I should just keep my 17-40L. But then, I believe FF will be affordable (to me, affordable means in the low 3k or high 2k) only in 5 years or more. By then, people might ask for lower prices. Buyers these days are picky. They use the lens production code and figure out how old the lens is! Already, I've got 1 or 2 buyers asking what the code is and then they offer based on that rather than seeing how new my lens is. I still have a film body but doubt I'll use the 17-40L on films anymore.

Oh.. I didn't know the 17-40mm vignettes also for FF bodies. Is it very obvious or it's just something like what we see with the 17-55IS? Hmm, I think all wide angle zooms will have some then. Even the 24-105L also has it on FF. The 24-70 is just too big and heavy on FF. I think we 1.6x DSLR users must be thankful for the 17-55IS. Moreover, the 24-70L doesn't have IS!

 

[Denosha]

Just did some night shooting in the city last night (long exposures with tripods and all). Having used both the 17-55 and the 17-40L side by side under real world conditions, I can say that the 17-55 DOES flare a lot more easily than the 17-40L, which actually controls flare very well for a WA lens.

So coupled with the ability to stack filters and use a normal 3 filter cokin holder, the 17-40L is still a better lens for shooting landscapes.

 

[panzerpunk]

Best if Canon can come out with a 17-70/ F2.8 IS USM L.
that will be my dream lens, hehe!

I will sure buy that lens!

 

[shinken]

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?

I don't own the 50 108, but the 501.4. As I'm not too crazy about sharpness, I'd nvr compared them side by side. But my impression tells me that they are not a lot different. 50 1.4 tends to be a tad sharper. Only 85 1.8 would be noticeably sharper than the 17-40. So it's quite possible that the 50 1.8 is sharper.

 

[ianpaice]

I have both the 50mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4. The f1.4 version is definitely sharper than the f1.8 when shooting at aperture f1.8. However this is only evident when one view at 100%. More significantly, the contrast between them is definitely different as the f1.4 has much better contrast over the f1.8.

Maybe I will do a comparison between the 17 - 40 and 50mm f1.8 later and see how much they differs....

I don't own the 50 108, but the 501.4. As I'm not too crazy about sharpness, I'd nvr compared them side by side. But my impression tells me that they are not a lot different. 50 1.4 tends to be a tad sharper. Only 85 1.8 would be noticeably sharper than the 17-40. So it's quite possible that the 50 1.8 is sharper.

 

[kiwi2]

Just did some night shooting in the city last night (long exposures with tripods and all). Having used both the 17-55 and the 17-40L side by side under real world conditions, I can say that the 17-55 DOES flare a lot more easily than the 17-40L, which actually controls flare very well for a WA lens.

So coupled with the ability to stack filters and use a normal 3 filter cokin holder, the 17-40L is still a better lens for shooting landscapes.

Hee... So u still do own both lenses? I'm itching to try the 17-55IS outdoors to see how serious the flare is.

 

[kiwi2]

I don't own the 50 108, but the 501.4. As I'm not too crazy about sharpness, I'd nvr compared them side by side. But my impression tells me that they are not a lot different. 50 1.4 tends to be a tad sharper. Only 85 1.8 would be noticeably sharper than the 17-40. So it's quite possible that the 50 1.8 is sharper.

The 85mm is really noticeably sharper than the 17-40?? I used to own the 85 also. Didn't notice that and can't quite say that...

Hard to compare cos one is a prime starting at f/1.8 and the other is a zoom at f/4. It's like asking who's the faster runner? The 1500m champion athelete or the 3000m one?

If you are talking about at f/4 and sharpness at corners, then yes, 85mm would be better than the 17-40. But such comparisons are unfair to begin with.

 

[shinken]

The 85mm is really noticeably sharper than the 17-40?? I used to own the 85 also. Didn't notice that and can't quite say that...

Hard to compare cos one is a prime starting at f/1.8 and the other is a zoom at f/4. It's like asking who's the faster runner? The 1500m champion athelete or the 3000m one?

If you are talking about at f/4 and sharpness at corners, then yes, 85mm would be better than the 17-40. But such comparisons are unfair to begin with.

I was asked to make an unfair comparisons. There's no such thing as a fair comparison, and this very thread (Canon New 17-55/F2.8 IS USM VS 17-40/F4 L?) definitely is not about making fair comparisons so pls spare me ur analogies. I understand u perfectly well without them.

To me, there's a noticeable difference for my use and experience. If you can't notice that for your case of pixel peeps, that's ur experience ya? I'm entitled to my own I think? Plus, I'm not crazy about sharpness. There are too many factors determining which lens I use. Sharpness is really not on the top of the list really.

 

[engta]

Saving up to upgrade from my 17-85IS to 17-55IS..

IS is becoming a critical feature for walkaround zoom lens for me, especially useful when travelling.

Some pics taken at HK too:

Only possible to shoot these handheld thanks to IS.

Nice photos you have Kongo, may I know what camera you are using?

 

[kiwi2]

I was asked to make an unfair comparisons. There's no such thing as a fair comparison, and this very thread (Canon New 17-55/F2.8 IS USM VS 17-40/F4 L?) definitely is not about making fair comparisons so pls spare me ur analogies. I understand u perfectly well without them.

To me, there's a noticeable difference for my use and experience. If you can't notice that for your case of pixel peeps, that's ur experience ya? I'm entitled to my own I think? Plus, I'm not crazy about sharpness. There are too many factors determining which lens I use. Sharpness is really not on the top of the list really.

Fwah.. Take it easy my friend. How come u sounded so hostile?

We are all here to share experiences and I was only commenting what u had said without any intention to hurt. If u think I'm not right, can point out to me. I'm also learning. If I say something disagreeable or contentious, I also want people to point out to me. Tell me in the face it's biased, unfair, I'm ok with that.

It's fine and not at all unfair to compare 17-55 and 17-40 cos they are both zooms and they have much of their focal lengths overlap. But 85 and 17-40? I dunno.

I'm interested to know how or why u said your 85 is sharper than 17-40. I'm not attacking u in any way. Up to you okie.. If u want to share it here, pls do so. If not, it's fine too.

But pls, my analogy and question were really innocent. Sweat man, in CS must sometimes choose words and sentences properly.... Like walking in a minefield. :sweat:

 

[CreaXion]

Shinken is a very nice online mentor in many ways. Gives practical advice for real world situations. He has given me many advice that made me think and reflect. U shd hear some of his quotes.

Anyway, I am asking regarding the prime and the L is to confirm whether my L has any problems or not because my F4L is giving me a lot of softness in my pics. I cannot determine the problem. Asking for help.

 

[shinken]

Fwah.. Take it easy my friend. How come u sounded so hostile?

We are all here to share experiences and I was only commenting what u had said without any intention to hurt. If u think I'm not right, can point out to me. I'm also learning. If I say something disagreeable or contentious, I also want people to point out to me. Tell me in the face it's biased, unfair, I'm ok with that.

It's fine and not at all unfair to compare 17-55 and 17-40 cos they are both zooms and they have much of their focal lengths overlap. But 85 and 17-40? I dunno.

I'm interested to know how or why u said your 85 is sharper than 17-40. I'm not attacking u in any way. Up to you okie.. If u want to share it here, pls do so. If not, it's fine too.

But pls, my analogy and question were really innocent. Sweat man, in CS must sometimes choose words and sentences properly.... Like walking in a minefield. :sweat:

Chill I didn't mean to sound hostile as well. Internet is a minefield for misunderstandings ya?
Well, as I mentioned, I didn't mean to compare zooms with primes, was merely answering Creaxions question. For me, 35, 50 1.8 and 1.4, 85, 100 (both F2 and F2.8) all should beat the 17-40, being primes. But since Creaxion asked, I shared my experience. 17-55 and 17-40 is not a fair comparison either. Price is diff to begin with. Even if we're talking abt optics, the 17-55 has a one stop advantage (for stepping down to gain sharpness), but I really dun wish to get into specifics. At the end of the day, people will compare. Limited resources, unlimited ones. People will continue to make unfair comparisons.

As I mentioned also, my observations were not based on side-by-side comparisons, but my impressions based on my works. I can shoot with 17-40 and 85 interchangeably, and can pretty easily pick out the 85 shots for being sharper and having more dynamic colours, that's all I can say on "why". In fact, you mentioned urself that when stepped down, it's unfair to compare 85 at F4 and 17-40 at F4. That's kind of conceding the sharpness of 85? I would go as far as saying 85 1.8 at F4 is one of the sharpest lens in Canon's arsenal of any lens from focal length below 135, zooms or primes alike, based on impression.. Likewise, the 50 may be sharper as well (based on impression), but it's much less obvious than the 85.

Pixel peeping can help us understand the characteristics better no doubt, but under real world conditions, the reality tends to show us different results. My latest realisation was from DPreviews noise tests on 5D. It wasn't significant at all, the improvement over 20D. Once brought to the real world, I was astounded. Yet shooters who never needed the push their cams/lenses would never see this diff at the same time. That's why 'YMMV' comes abt I guess.

 

[shinken]

Shinken is a very nice online mentor in many ways. Gives practical advice for real world situations. He has given me many advice that made me think and reflect. U shd hear some of his quotes.

Please, ur embarassing me and making ppl barf! :flush:

 

[Zplus]

Hey Thanks ZPlus for the advice.

Yah, still thinking if I should just keep my 17-40L. But then, I believe FF will be affordable (to me, affordable means in the low 3k or high 2k) only in 5 years or more. By then, people might ask for lower prices. Buyers these days are picky. They use the lens production code and figure out how old the lens is! Already, I've got 1 or 2 buyers asking what the code is and then they offer based on that rather than seeing how new my lens is. I still have a film body but doubt I'll use the 17-40L on films anymore.

Oh.. I didn't know the 17-40mm vignettes also for FF bodies. Is it very obvious or it's just something like what we see with the 17-55IS? Hmm, I think all wide angle zooms will have some then. Even the 24-105L also has it on FF. The 24-70 is just too big and heavy on FF. I think we 1.6x DSLR users must be thankful for the 17-55IS. Moreover, the 24-70L doesn't have IS!

The 17-40 vignette is there but not that bad. Similar to the 17-55. You got a point with the lens code. Seems like these days 2nd hand buyers are quite picky. Hehe. I'd probably stick to 1.6x for a while - it can only get cheaper and cheaper when they produce cheaper FF. Probably when I am old and need a brighter viewfinder and not too crazy about bird photography (my Bigma loves the extra 1.6x), I'd go FF. Yeah, once you have IS, its hard to go back...;p

Just did some night shooting in the city last night (long exposures with tripods and all). Having used both the 17-55 and the 17-40L side by side under real world conditions, I can say that the 17-55 DOES flare a lot more easily than the 17-40L, which actually controls flare very well for a WA lens.

So coupled with the ability to stack filters and use a normal 3 filter cokin holder, the 17-40L is still a better lens for shooting landscapes.

The 17-55's front element does not rotate and its 77mm. So you can stack the filters, polarizers and Cokin filter holders too... The hood is a flower petal shape and does help to control flares.

A non-photographic friend asked me the other day, "Why bother spending $XX dollars for a hood; what is a hood used for anyway???"

I said, "Hoods are those things you attach to the lens like a tube or cup, it prevents stray light from causing lens flare."

She said, "Oh, then why dont you use your hands to shade it like this??"
*gives me the salute posture with hand*
:sweat: