Difference between the Kit lens and 17-40mm f4 L ?
- Thread starter rexscooby
- Start date
- Status
Camera providing food! This is a breakthrough
:bsmilie: I want Shitake mushrooms! ;p
hmm... did a little expriments with the charts
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&FLI=0&API=3
it seems that if u shoot at f8 there is really not much diff.... in fact the 17-40 has MORE CA!!! amazing for $800 more u hardly see any diff
well thats if u shoot more scenery, heck the kit lens would be good enough!!!
colours can always be adjusted in PS
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=410&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&FLI=0&API=3
it seems that if u shoot at f8 there is really not much diff.... in fact the 17-40 has MORE CA!!! amazing for $800 more u hardly see any diff
well thats if u shoot more scenery, heck the kit lens would be good enough!!!
colours can always be adjusted in PS
miniUltraman
Senior Member
I guess many try to convince ourselves that the kit lens would be good enough (including myself)... :bsmilie: internally, we know it doesn't :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
I have to take extra units and exams if I want CA status.
horhorhorhorhor.
Though it may not help image quality, and photograph quality, new gear surely feels good
But when used long already, doesn't feel new hehe...
miniUltraman
Senior Member
This is a good sign... it means.. it is time to replace :bsmilie: 24-105 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Cannot lah...if always like this, pocket will burn a big hole.
i use the tamron 17-50 f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
its the BEST alternative for a budget wide lens. well the most budget for a f2.8 throughout ~~~
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
its the BEST alternative for a budget wide lens. well the most budget for a f2.8 throughout ~~~
Soon, must go see doctor liao... :bsmilie:
hmm... did a bit more research
tamron 17-50 f2.8 VS 17-40mm f4 L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
if the results are accurate..... then i think the 17-40mm f4 L will be a relic soon. other then the USM and weather seal advantage...... even shooting at f2.8 every single picture is better!!!
tamron 17-50 f2.8 VS 17-40mm f4 L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
if the results are accurate..... then i think the 17-40mm f4 L will be a relic soon. other then the USM and weather seal advantage...... even shooting at f2.8 every single picture is better!!!
Many folks try to convince themselves their 17-40 f/4L is the best invention since sliced bread, but, deep inside, they know it isn't true. :bsmilie:
On the other hand, if anyone plans to go FF, the 17-40 is useful 'cos it serves the same purpose as the 10-22 on an APS-C camera. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is notorious for its poor focusing ability (accuracy and speed) in low light. So, there, a more balanced view point....
Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is notorious for its poor focusing ability (accuracy and speed) in low light. So, there, a more balanced view point....
oh~~ i have a question on the focusing ability~~ does it depend on the body or the lens?
eg. same lens, will a 30d focus faster compared to a 350d?
The 17-40 on the other hand has one of the fastest AF even among the L lenses.
It is very nice too that the barrel doesnt extends when zooming (IF).
It is very nice too that the barrel doesnt extends when zooming (IF).
Many folks try to convince themselves their 17-40 f/4L is the best invention since sliced bread, but, deep inside, they know it isn't true. :bsmilie:
On the other hand, if anyone plans to go FF, the 17-40 is useful 'cos it serves the same purpose as the 10-22 on an APS-C camera. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is notorious for its poor focusing ability (accuracy and speed) in low light. So, there, a more balanced view point....
I'd say it depends more on the AF algorithm and the AF system. For instance, the 400D and the 30D have the same 9-point AF system, and thus, should have similar AF performance when the same lens is mounted on both bodies. 350D has an older 7-point AF system which may be slower/not as sensitive.
miniUltraman
Senior Member
Many folks try to convince themselves their 17-40 f/4L is the best invention since sliced bread, but, deep inside, they know it isn't true. :bsmilie:
On the other hand, if anyone plans to go FF, the 17-40 is useful 'cos it serves the same purpose as the 10-22 on an APS-C camera. Also, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is notorious for its poor focusing ability (accuracy and speed) in low light. So, there, a more balanced view point....
I would say a 16-35 (and not the 17-40) on a FF if you want a equivalent 10-22 focal length :sweatsm:
Both users below (lightrules and Adam-T) are very experienced and careful lens testers.
From: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/t1750qt (tested lens on Canon 20D)
"AF IN LOW-LIGHT is not good. The lens will hunt back and forth, twitching, and struggle in many low-light conditions. This can be very frustrating, so using an external flash will help quite a bit here. AF ACCURACY (with this copy) is poor at 17mm and further subjects (e.g., beyond 7 feet) but acceptable at 17mm and close subjects (e.g., 1-7 feet). At the 50mm mark focus accuracy is good and generally reliable."
From http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=22999608
"This lens is a pain for AF issues in less than stellar light regardless of camera, the N mount one I tried couldn't focus in low light on a D1X, a camera with THE most accurate AF on the planet (Yes, better than the 1DS-II and D2X)."
Hm. I've encountered problems with accurate focusing for quite a number of 17mm-xxmm zooms, particularly the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Both these lenses backfocused severely. However, at the tele end, the problem was not evident. I did not encounter this problem with the 17-40L that I rented to test over a weekend (mind you, over an entire weekend, not a couple of hours).
- Status
Similar threads
