Difference between the Kit lens and 17-40mm f4 L ?

[ihub88]

Thx for the feedbacks bros..
Well, both pictures were taken with autofocus.. That reflects on the focusing system of each lenses i guess..

Anywae, how about this one..

Kit Lens

f/4L

There r noticable differences in terms of contrast and also sharpness (take a look at d texture on d wall on right hand side of the picture).

And btw, these pictures were taken with a crop body (400d), u can notice a bigger difference in an FF body (try 5d)...

Wad d'ya guys think?

whats the diff between the two pics?

cannot tell much ya

 

[imanuel90]

O ya and btw...If u have budget for ur lens, u might consider buying a second handed lens..
U can test the quality of d lens and make sure that it is a sharp copy before u purchaes it (most of the used one are), just becareful with who ure dealing wif..
I bought mine from SQ123..good lens, good quality, reasonable price..She really take a good care of her lens..No sratches at all, just like new..=)

 

[miniUltraman]

O ya and btw...If u have budget for ur lens, u might consider buying a second handed lens..
U can test the quality of d lens and make sure that it is a sharp copy before u purchaes it (most of the used one are), just becareful with who ure dealing wif..
I bought mine from SQ123..good lens, good quality, reasonable price..She really take a good care of her lens..No sratches at all, just like new..=)

oh.. SQ123.. now she is selling her 70-200f2.8IS.. buy buy buy :lovegrin:

 

[thw]

whats the diff between the two pics? cannot tell much ya

Agreed. Let me play devil's advocate here.

Why do I want to pay so much more for a lens when the image quality difference is not that significant? I am certain the 17-40 will have better edge sharpness, color and contrast. But color and contrast can easily be put back in post-processing. And edge sharpness does not show up unless you routinely print large your pictures.

 

[SQ123]

:embrass:

 

[calebk]

Agreed. Let me play devil's advocate here.

Why do I want to pay so much more for a lens when the image quality difference is not that significant? I am certain the 17-40 will have better edge sharpness, color and contrast. But color and contrast can easily be put back in post-processing. And edge sharpness does not show up unless you routinely print large your pictures.

:devil: :devil: Who's watched Rowan Atkinson's stand up comedy?

"I'm the devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby if you like. We like to keep things informal around here, as well as infernal."

To the TS, seems like you can't justify paying for the lens. My vote still goes to "stick to the kit lens"

 

[buganeal]

Ahhh.....i see this thread is quite active....... now to fish for some opnions that i know the TS will find useful...... For a fact, i know the TS has a kit lens and a 70-200IS F4L Lens. The question is, would he benefit from a 17-40L or a 24-105L given that he owns a kit lens already.
The TS has in fact recently tried out for himself the 17-40L vs the Kit lens. Now the point is would you get another relatively "similar range" Lens but with better imaging qualities or would you get another lens of a different range bearing in mind that Both lenses in question are L lenses and are F4 straight thru.
The TS is also considering a 300f4 prime or a 400f5.6 prime....but since his bros wedding is the main objective........oh well .... bye bye primes....:cry:
So wadda ya guys think?:dunno:

 

[calebk]

Ahhh.....i see this thread is quite active....... now to fish for some opnions that i know the TS will find useful...... For a fact, i know the TS has a kit lens and a 70-200IS F4L Lens. The question is, would he benefit from a 17-40L or a 24-105L given that he owns a kit lens already.
The TS has in fact recently tried out for himself the 17-40L vs the Kit lens. Now the point is would you get another relatively "similar range" Lens but with better imaging qualities or would you get another lens of a different range bearing in mind that Both lenses in question are L lenses and are F4 straight thru.
The TS is also considering a 300f4 prime or a 400f5.6 prime....but since his bros wedding is the main objective........oh well .... bye bye primes....:cry:
So wadda ya guys think?:dunno:

300 f/4 for wedding? Shoot groom's left eye huh? Heh.

I think for wedding photog, getting a good Speedlite, and getting familiar with flash photography is invaluable.

 

[rexscooby]

300 f/4 for wedding? Shoot groom's left eye huh? Heh.

I think for wedding photog, getting a good Speedlite, and getting familiar with flash photography is invaluable.

haha , no lah . the 300 f/4 for nature/wildlife/uh .... super close up ;p . I would have to get a flash too actually , a 430ex would be enough huh i guess ?

 

[rexscooby]

Ahhh.....i see this thread is quite active....... now to fish for some opnions that i know the TS will find useful...... For a fact, i know the TS has a kit lens and a 70-200IS F4L Lens. The question is, would he benefit from a 17-40L or a 24-105L given that he owns a kit lens already.
The TS has in fact recently tried out for himself the 17-40L vs the Kit lens. Now the point is would you get another relatively "similar range" Lens but with better imaging qualities or would you get another lens of a different range bearing in mind that Both lenses in question are L lenses and are F4 straight thru.
The TS is also considering a 300f4 prime or a 400f5.6 prime....but since his bros wedding is the main objective........oh well .... bye bye primes....:cry:
So wadda ya guys think?:dunno:

Who's fault is this ? ;p You got me started with the BBB fever

 

[mcn]

if u want, u can tell us why peace, tku

Agreed. Let me play devil's advocate here.

Why do I want to pay so much more for a lens when the image quality difference is not that significant? I am certain the 17-40 will have better edge sharpness, color and contrast. But color and contrast can easily be put back in post-processing. And edge sharpness does not show up unless you routinely print large your pictures.

 

[lightning]

The difference is really very great. I won't say the 17-40 is really that weatherproof cos recently i brought it out to shoot in slight drizzle, i found 2 tiny drops of rain inside my lens.

But overall u're talking about an entry-level lens vs. a pro grade one, so it's obvious.

17-40 is as weather sealed as the body. If the camera body is not weather sealed, the lens will risk dust and moisture entering it.

 

[hazmee]

To rexscooby,

You can spend days or weeks having a mental tug of war justifying the cost. To make things simpler, if you need it, bite the bullet and just buy it. Sell it away if you don't like it. Sounds very easy but don't worry. I bet you'll learn to make full use of the lens. What's the point of buying if its going to be left in the drybox right?

Anyway, what's wrong with the kit lens? Why is it not good enough for you? Sharpness? Contrast? Bokeh? Or is it a sudden urge to splurge money? If you can't find a clear answer why you need a 'better' lens, I'd suggest you keep current lens and learn how to use it better. Or you can always rent it out for a day or two to test it out.

I bought the 17-40L because I needed it and its a great all-rounder lens when using it on the 5D. Image quality aside, I love the FOV, the build quality, the light weight, the USM, the weather-seal and of course the price (with the exception of the hood). I always bring it with me whenever I go shooting. Its a lens that I can't leave home without. The lens hasn't me given any major problems so far. The corners are soft when shot at wide aperture but its not really a big deal for me. I print my pics in A3 all the time and I am very happy with the results that I get. I worry more about cost of paper and ink rather that the sharpness of the lens. Different people have different priorities so get yours right first before getting the lens. Like the rest of the good folks here already mentioned, if you're having trouble justifying it, then probably it isn't meant for you.

Hope that helps you in anyway and have a great weekend! Cheers!

 

[Snoweagle]

17-40 is as weather sealed as the body. If the camera body is not weather sealed, the lens will risk dust and moisture entering it.

Yeah i suppose that's y it happened. Until now the 2 tiny droplets are still there. ;(

 

[lightning]

Yeah i suppose that's y it happened. Until now the 2 tiny droplets are still there. ;(

I think better service it soon, less mushroom starts growing there!

 

[Snoweagle]

I think better service it soon, less mushroom starts growing there!

But it's in my dry cabinet most of the time, shouldn't be a prob.

 

[calebk]

But it's in my dry cabinet most of the time, shouldn't be a prob.

That proves you haven't had time to go for a proper shoot. Hah.

 

[miniUltraman]

But it's in my dry cabinet most of the time, shouldn't be a prob.

mushroom will spread in dry cabi leh :bsmilie:

 

[Snoweagle]

That proves you haven't had time to go for a proper shoot. Hah.

Wrong. I did model shoots in the weekends for a few hours under the sun each time and weekdays it's in my dry cabinet. Still, it's there.

 

[Snoweagle]

mushroom will spread in dry cabi leh :bsmilie:

Then gd lor..have mushroom plantation.