EF-S 17-55 IS v. Kit Lens

[Dan Roeder]

Can anyone post some comparison shots with these two lenses? I would like to see the IQ difference between the two. Thanks.

[ChopstickHero]

sorry .. posted up something, but my photo server is not cooperating, i'll post up my comparison later.

[MeNiS]

comparing a $100 vs. $1100 lens.....that's just unfair!! =)

[jj1987]

Can anyone post some comparison shots with these two lenses? I would like to see the IQ difference between the two. Thanks.
http://www.openlearningcenter.com/learning/images/day-night.gif

[kram]

Now jj, return that book to your kids :)

[jj1987]

Now jj, return that book to your kids :)
:lol:

If I have kids to return it to.......I'm going to have a bone to pick with Mr Trogan. :p

[323]

:lol:

If I have kids to return it to.......I'm going to have a bone to pick with Mr Trogan. :p

buahahahah

[kram]

Can anyone post some comparison shots with these two lenses? I would like to see the IQ difference between the two. Thanks.

Dan, any particular reason you want this comparison? They are very different lenses at extremely different price points. These two lenses are not considered 'alternates' and so you would see very few comparisons.

[mrkgoo]

sorry .. posted up something, but my photo server is not cooperating, i'll post up my comparison later.

You know, I saw the pics, at f4, and to be honest, I didn't think there were that different. It seemed the 17-55 (bottom pic?) was sharper, but had less contrast - or atleast was overall brighter. Interestingly, I don't remember seeing a HUGE difference... I'll have a closer look when your server behaves...

[jj1987]

I heard the 17-55 was much better at F/2.8

[mrkgoo]

I heard the 17-55 was much better at F/2.8

Touché.

[ccp900]

oh thats the same as saying the 17-55 is sharper at 17mm....:p

[molesrkool]

yeh... lol^^^

the kit doesnt do f/2.8

[Dan Roeder]

Yes, I know they are like night and day, and I know there's around a $1000 difference between the two. That's precisely why I would like to see a comparison. Even if you subtract off $500 for the IS difference, is the picture quality difference worth $500?

[RuggerJoe]

http://www.openlearningcenter.com/learning/images/day-night.gif

That was one of the funniest replies I have seen. Took me a second to figure it out, but when I did I couldn't stopp laughing

[RuggerJoe]

Yes, I know they are like night and day, and I know there's around a $1000 difference between the two. That's precisely why I would like to see a comparison. Even if you subtract off $500 for the IS difference, is the picture quality difference worth $500?

You also need to keep in mind that it's not just picture quality. There is also the glass needed to give you two whole extra stops of aperature at the wide end and 2.5 or 3 at the long end.

[Jon]

You also need to keep in mind that it's not just picture quality. There is also the glass needed to give you two whole extra stops of aperature at the wide end and 2.5 or 3 at the long end.Less than 1 at the wide, 2 at the long.

[jj1987]

Honestly If I shot at F/8 a lot I wouldn't dump the $$$ on the 17-55IS. The closer you get to wide open on the kit lens, the more you justify the 17-55IS.

The kit lens also has some vignetting that I would notice on the very edges.

[jojohohanon]

I would love to see this comparison. If the $1000 is worth it, the 17-55 should walk all over the 18-55.

[PhilipJohnBasile]

KIT LENS
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4089/1asmallgv6.jpg

17-55MM
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/7303/1bsmallbe7.jpg

KIT LENS
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/606/3asmallyy2.jpg

17-55MM
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/5320/3bsmallkt6.jpg

These were al shot @ 55mm 5.6 1600 ISO

[dr_who]

lens that sells for $1100 doesn't mean it's worth $1100. Simply means its targeted for "professional." Build Quality: $50, Image Quality: $100, Faster Speed: $150, feeling your eliteness through using L lens: priceless

[condyk]

Well there are many people here who base all their opinions on the opinions they read from other people, or on very limited experience with a kit bag of 'recommended# gear.

The differences between many lenses is not necessarily massive IMO and there is a huge bunch of them at the mid to very decent point in quality terms but which diverge in price by very large amounts of cash.

I posted a shot taken with my £6 Helios MF lens and a shot taken with my £700 24-105mm IS L. Everyone thought the Helios was the L :lol: :lol: So, there are many things to consider in all this assessment stuff, not least ones own ability to take a half decent picture. We see this all the time here.

As the shots above show, differences can be insignificant for those shooting day to day regular stuff. Of course, that fact will never stop the 'my winky is bigger than yours' crowd from insisting otherwise.

[Dan Roeder]

Thank-you Obitron64 for posting your pics (and thanks ChopstickHero for trying), and thanks to those who responded with helpful comments. I have been having a difficult internal debate about buying this lens. I've read many of the threads about how great the lens is, but with few pictures. The fact that I could only get one person to post any pictures gives me pause. Perhaps everyone that now has one of the 17-55 IS lenses has already gotten rid of their kit lens, so they can't provide any comparison pics. I've seen the thread with all the great kit lens shots but, like I said, I haven't seen that many from the 17-55 IS. I guess I will have to continue having my internal debate. And I was really wanting this for my trip to New England in the fall.... Maybe I'll figure it out in the next month, but right now I can't seem to justify parting with the $1100.

[ccp900]

well, if you do a lot of indoor stuff then the 17-55 is the lens for you but if you can use flash or youre always shooting things outside in good light then just keep the $$