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

[CreaXion]

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

Dun be shy lah. U are just being humble. You really give practical advice and not just some theory.

 

[kiwi2]

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.

Yeah, it's easy to misunderstand esp. in CS but I'm glad we've clear things up. I wanna make friends, not enemies. :bsmilie:

Ok, I have to add a disclaimer here. The following comments are really my own opinions and not meant to slam u or anyone. Sometimes we hold our views strongly as much as one could say I love durians and the other say The smell of it stinks! No right or wrong. It's all right if anyone disagrees with me but nothing malicious is intended.

I'm also a more pracitcal shooter than theoretical (That's why I've sold my 35,50 and 85 in fvor of zooms!) though I also enjoy reading MTFs and the theories just for more info sometimes.

One problem with comparing lenses is that it can be subjective and even the lens we get can be statistical: Some are lemon while others are good copies.

I've owned and used the 35, 50, 85 and 100. 35mm is soft at f/2 and starts to perform at f/2.8 onwards. 50 f/1.4 is the worst I've seen wide open but at f/2, it's pretty ok, f/2.8 onwards very good. 85 f/1.8: soft wide open and very good from f/2.8 onwards. Soft here means relative to what they can perform at other smaller apertures.

I guess when it comes to comparing lenses, people usually do so based on common focal lengths. 17-40L, 17-55IS, and 17-85IS are all good and fair comparisons to begin with. Some might even add in the 24-70L. That's most practical cos if I'm looking to buy a lens, I will choose a particular range and those lenses fit the bill. Not that u can't compare primes with zooms so long as its focal length falls within the range of the zooms.

As for different max apertures of the zooms, I don't see it as being unfair to compare. What's on my mind would be for eg, does the 17-55 at its max aperture perform as well as the 17-40L at 17mm, 28mm, 40mm wide open? My practical test result is, Yes, at the centre the former is comparably sharp but loses out at the edges. What about at f/4, f/5.6 etc etc.

But when it was mentioned the 85mm f/1.8 is sharper than the 17-40L, I was kinda caught off guard by the "lack of reference", if u like. For eg, I'm sure the 17-40L at f/8 or f/5.6 can beat the 85mm at f/2. And secondly, I never thot about comparing a wide angle zoom with a mid telephoto prime. So I clarify here my being puzzled earlier...

As for 85 being "the sharpest arsenal" below 135mm, that's subjective too. Some say 35 f/1.4, some say 100mm macro.

Whatever it is, as long as we are satisfied... At the end of the day, it's the picture-taking skill that still counts in making beautiful pictures.

In fact, I've sold most of my primes for Canon's zooms as I feel zooms are not only very convenient but optically, they perform very well and rival primes.

Anyway, I hope more users can share their experiences of 17-40L and 17-55IS so we can compare.

CreaXion, I will post some pics from 17-40L soon. In the meantime, maybe u want to show a bad pic here from your 17-40L?

 

[shinken]

As for 85 being "the sharpest arsenal" below 135mm, that's subjective too. Some say 35 f/1.4, some say 100mm macro.

Erm, I actually said "one of the sharpest"? Well, as for the rest of what you said, I'm inclined to agree with some of what u said, and I'll just leave it as that. If zooms work for u, great! I own and work with 17-40 a lot too, though I anticipate I will work more with 24-105. If u followed my post and read them carefully, u wud have noticed that the I found that the difference between 50 and 17-40 is not noticeable. Maybe 85 (to me) would be noticeable (not signficant, just noticeable).

I use primes for a diff reason, or rather, a variety of reasons. Sharpness, I reiterate, is not the top of my list.

 

[kiwi2]

Yes indeed...

Primes have their uses for different aspects.

 

[Kongo]

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

Hi engta,

Shooting these pics with the 350D

BTW, to the rest, if IS is not a crucial feature for you, can also consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

There are many good review on this lens & the numbers seemed like it's optical performance is quite close to the 17-40L & 17-55IS.

Cheaper & smaller too.. if u don't mind 3rd party lens

 

[Jeff]

17-55 if im not mistake has L ULD lenses. but not flourite coated.

to be exact, calcium fluorite is an artificially grown single crystal mineral used by Canon to achieve 100% of light transmission. it cannot be coated onto any surface cause to grow single crystal of CaF2, u will need a CaF2 seed

so what u see as elements used in lenses containing CaF2 are part of a big crystal, not coating.

 

[Denosha]

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

Yeah i do and I'll probably keep both lenses. Anyway my bro shares lenses with me so both lenses still get utilised fairly frequently.

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.

I've tried that and even with a normal uv filter (this could also be a cir-pl or nd) + slim filter holder, it will vignette in certain positions. The 17-40L on the other hand lets u put a ND + cir-pl + the normal 3 filter cokin holder without any probs. The hood does help but you can't use it with the cokin holder. Anyway, in day in day shooting, if you follow proper flare-avoiding rules, it's perfectly fine. It's just that compared to the 17-40L, it's not as good a landscape (especially night) lens. So people who do shoot more of these kinda stuff might want to take note.

As for primes, I don't think it's fair to compare. My 3 sharpest lenses wide open are the 135L, 35L and 300F4L (in that order) but the 17-55 is VERY close to the 300F4L in terms of wide open sharpness. It's probably my sharpest zoom (even compared to L zooms). In terms of normal use i wouldn't choose btw any of these lenses based solely on sharpness alone. They are all more than good enough.