I should add that the 18-55 IS is a really nice lens for the money, but it does not "blow away" the L at all. The L has much nice IQ overall. The 18-55 IS is great for the money though, so you can't really knock it.
I should add that the 18-55 IS is a really nice lens for the money, but it does not "blow away" the L at all. The L has much nice IQ overall. The 18-55 IS is great for the money though, so you can't really knock it.
Originally Posted by Mikeh
For the record.... I think you mean "Daniel"
I've never owned or used the 18-55 kit lens.
First, thank you for the correction -- you are right that the 18-55 IS doesn't really blow away the 17-40 -- it's only slightly better than the L. I should not have exaggerated.
Second, I was responding specifically to the OP's question about sharpness (i.e. contrast and resolution). I was not speaking about the overall performance of the lenses, such as color accuracy, flare, bokeh, transmissivity, etc.
Third, the test you linked to do not demonstrate superiority of the 17-40 in contrast or resolution. The 18-55 is sharper in the corners at all focal lengths, and in the center for most of the zoom range (18-28mm). The 17-40 is only sharper in the center at 35mm.
Fourth, your test photos are stopped down to f/6.3, almost two stops for the 18-55 at 18mm. The difference between the 17-40 and 18-55 are more striking when they are shot wide open. At f/6.3 they become more similar, which is why your pics show a smaller difference than other tests.
Fifth, the comparison you linked to is at hyperfocal distance, which makes it good for landscape photographers. However, my experience is that the strength of the 18-55 is in closer focus distances, such as for people and event photography. The contrast/resolution advantage of the 18-55 is clearer there.
Sixth, I agree that the 17-40 does not have the ugly color cast of the 18-55, but that is a separate issue from sharpness that the OP asked about. Furthermore, the color cast is easily corrected with white balance, or more optimally corrected with a color profile.
Finally, even if I was totally wrong and it is the 17-40, not 18-55, that has slightly higher resolution and contrast, then even then, such a difference is not a good reason to pay so much more for a lens. Maybe 20% more. Or even 50% more if you really need contrast. But not 440% more, which is what it takes to get the 17-40 over the 18-55. The advantages of the 17-40 are in other areas aside from contrast/resolution, such as build quality, focus, weather sealing, and much more. Those other reasons are what make it a good value.
My experience is that the 17-55 is not going to do any better with autofocus. It will be quieter is all. I think upgrading from your 50D to the 7D would make more difference to autofocus.
There's no contest. The 17-55 destroys the 17-40 in almost every category. The only superiority of the 17-40 is in the weather sealing, build quality, and full-frame compatibility.
If your whole reason for upgrading is autofocus, then the 17-40 would be a huge step backwards. It does not even activate the f/2.8 autofocus sensor in your camera, which is far more accurate than the f/5.6 sensors that the 17-40 uses.
It's true. The cheap, lowly 18-55 kit lens blows the 17-40 out of the water:
18mm at f/4.0
24mm at f/4.0
28mm at f/4.5
35mm at f/5.6
The other cheap lenses are even better. Your previous Tamron 17-50, or the Sigma 18-50, and of course the Canon 17-55 all do better than the kit lens, so they are in a different league than the 17-40.
It should not be surprising or hard to believe. The 17-40 is like a big commercial truck that can carry 30,000 pounds at 60 MPH. The 18-55 IS kit lens is like a small sedan. It can drive twice as fast as the truck (60 MPH), but it can't tow 30,000 pounds. It is much sharper than the 17-40, but it can't be used on full frame. The 17-55 f/2.8 USM and Tamron 17-50 are like sports cars. They drive even faster than the 18-55 kit lens, but they still can't be used on full frame.
If you want to see the 17-40 shine, you *have* to put it on full frame. Compare the 17-40 on full frame vs. the 10-22 on APS-C and you'll see what the 17-40 was designed to do.
I hope "decided" doesn't meant you did. The 17-50 f2.8 is an great piece of glass.
Low light parties are sometimes too low light even for the best L glass with USM. I'm still confused as to why people always want to blame it on the lens. I get more hunting with my 70-200 f2.8L in a low light situation than I do with the Tamron 17-50.
Primes are great for low light. I love the EF 50 f/1.4 @ f/2.0 for low light indoors work. That however is on A FF 5D. Maybe someone knows of a high quality 30 or 35 1.4 that would fit the low light party need of a APS-C sensor.
Sheiky, I think you'll find when shooting in low light with low number apertures AF will always be hit and miss. The dof at f2.8 and below gets very narrow and just a little movement toward or away from the camera can cause an OOF result. IMHO, I would suggest if you buy something that you would put it in a head to head test with the Tamron before selling that lens off. You might be suprised at the test results. It could save you some considerable coin.
Otherwise, I vote for the 17-55 f2.8 IS.
The last consideration is to buy a 430 EX II andshoot bounce flash. The external will give you focus assist in low light and with flash you can shoot at higher apertures resulting in sharper more "in-focus" images. If you feel like flash is to intrusive, set the flash not to fire and just use the AF assist.
My thoughts, good luck.
This is bad, this summer I could not make the same choice, so I got the tamron 17-50 2.8, because of the cost and its 17mm was to be wider that the canon's 17mm, and have been very happy with it, except for some back-focusing at very close range. You seem very well informed about the choices, have you looked at the new EPS 15-85 ( I think that is the right model ), wider on both ends, IS, somewhere inbetween for cost, and a little slower F-stop wise?
I've owned the 17-40 F4L and currently own the 17-55 F2.8IS. The IQ if the 17-40 is very nice -- very "L-like" with excellent contrast and color. It may not be as sharp ultimately as the 17-55 but that only matters if you're making huge prints. My standard product is an 8X10 print and both are more than sharp enough for that.
The 17-55 is a better lens for me for show formals and weddings. At F2.8, you get to use lower ISO. With IS, you get more sharp images in low light. Yes, it's sharper than the L but not by a lot. I've had no dust problems with mine and it's as well-constructed as the L. Both are excellent lenses. If you NEED the extra stop, then there's no question. The 17-55 is well worth the price. If you don't need it, then it's a matter of value and the 17-40 is an excellent value.
Jim
I made my decisionI bought the 17-55 yesterday. You wanna know why? Just read my starterspost, I will edit it with all my new and old findings!
get the 24-70... i have one on my 50d and it is a stunning lens. you will be amazed...
Well it wasn't really an option for me to buy the 24-70. And to be honest, I would pick the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body any given day. There is really nothing to say about the image quality the 17-55 produces, it's just great!
My friend bought the 24-70 on his 50D, but he suffered a lot more chromatic aberation than I had with my 17-55. Same shots!
And the IS makes a lot of photos very easy as well. As well does the weight by the way. The 24-70 is really a big fat boy [:P]
I believe the 24-70 is build for a full-frame camera and therefor it's noticeably better there than it is on a crop camera.
Unless you need the ruggedness I would advice the 17-55.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote