Canon 17-40 vs. 18-55 review

[cmM]

Hello folks.
As some of you may know, I recently purchased a 17-40mm f/4 L lens, and have owned the 18-55 EF-s lens since I bought my camera so I wanted to take a couple comparisson test shots and post them in here in case other users are interested to find out how the two lenses perform side to side.
Facts first, opinions after:

Note: Images are taken with my 300D on a tripod, RAW, manual everything, manual focusing (to infinity in most cases). Post processing... well none except downsizing for the web. No levels, no sharpening, no nothing, so the pics look like crap, but what matters is the ability to compare between the 2.

•Physical characteristics:

http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20rev1.jpg

Well, in terms of build, look, and feel... the L series lens is by far the winner:
-metal mount vs. plastic mount
-the focusing ring on the 18-55 is about 10 times as thin and positioned at the very top of the lens, so that's another disadvantage towards the 18-55.
-the 18-55 is a feather compared to the 17-40 (I guess this might be an good thing for some, but I personally preffer the much heavier 17-40 on my camera).
-the 18-55 doesn't have a sexy red stripe around it :wink:

•Autofocus:

Again, the L series lens wins with the fast and quiet USM autofocus, while the 18-55 takes a while longer and is much noisier when focusing.
Which one performs better in low light.... I didn't get to test that, and I don't know if there would be much of a difference, as it depends more on the body than lens.

•Samples
Okay, enough of this... look at these pictures and see for yourselves:
-Overall picture quality (I guess :roll: ):
17-40L @ 17mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/l1.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revl1.jpg
18-55 @ 18mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/s1.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revs1.jpg

-Overall picture quality, again (I guess :roll: ):
17-40L @ 17mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/l2.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revl2.jpg
18-55 @ 18mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/s2.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revs2.jpg

-Sharpness and out-of-focus quality (these were taken handheld, about 1 minute apart from each other, so they're not quite identical, but they should give you an idea)
17-40L @ 35mm, f/4
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revl3.jpg
18-55 @ 35mm, f/4
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revs3.jpg

-Colors:
17-40L @ 17mm, f/8
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/l4.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revl4.jpg
18-55 @ 18mm, f/8
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/s4.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revs4.jpg

•Conclusion: Is the 17-40 worth paying about 5 times the price of the 18-55?
Well, I was expecting the L lens to beat the 18-55 by far, but judging from the results they seem to give quite similar results. I know these are not the best photos to judge from, but I thought they would give people an idea. Also, this is the first time I attempt to review/compare anything, so go easy on me. I will try to take some more comparisson shots and update this post.

Ok, let the discussions begin:
... opinions ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Awesome cmM!

I just added a link in our budding "reviews" sticky :)

Thanks.

[drisley]

Great review.
This shows that for web images, or 4x6 prints, both lenses will work well.
I think the difference would be more obvious at 100% or large prints.

Would you be able to show a couple of 100% crops, especially in the corners of the images?

Btw, the first picture is a great one... a comparison of the actual sizes of the lenses. I always thought the 17-40L would be huge, but it's actually not that big at all!

[Panza]

Good review. :D
You might include 100% crops from the center and from the edges of the photos in the review. That way it's much easier to compare the sharpness. You should also try to take some pictures so that the sun hits the front lens element.

[timmyquest]

Thanks, i look at these, and i'm still just not convinced. The L is obviously better built, but for the price...i'm just not sure it's worth it optically. And i'm not just basing this on your review, 'im basing it on many of the same reviews.

[DocFrankenstein]

Great review.
This shows that for web images, or 4x6 prints, both lenses will work well.
I think the difference would be more obvious at 100% or large prints.
ROFLMAO :lol:

You should've scaled them down to 90-60 pixels :twisted:

And it helps when you are comparing, to make all things equal, IE: One of the non-changing WB settings, same focal distances, manual mode... etc :lol:

[cmM]

I'll add some 100% crops tomorrow to give you a better idea.

And it helps when you are comparing, to make all things equal, IE: One of the non-changing WB settings, same focal distances, manual mode... etc
In case you didn't read my entire post,
Note: Images are taken with my 300D on a tripod, RAW, manual everything, manual focusing (to infinity in most cases). Post processing... well none except downsizing for the web. No levels, no sharpening, no nothing, so the pics look like crap, but what matters is the ability to compare between the 2.
I took pictures at each lens' widest focal length. The difference is 1mm

[DocFrankenstein]

Whoops. What about "pre-set" white balance? (shadow, sunlight... etc)

I know, I know... I'm a picky little bastard.

And it's not like I can do better. I still have the comparison of the Sigma 70-200 and L 70-200, All I did was this:

http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p6244664.html

Apparently I screwed up the placement of the crops :twisted: Fine job

[slejhamer]

This reminds me of an older comparison between the "fantastic plastic" Tokina 19-35mm (the one with Hoya glass, not the cheaper Cosina-made version) and the 17-40mm L:

http://www.canonians.com/wideanglecompare.htm

For general purpose use and smaller print sizes, the less-expensive WA lenses seem to do the job adequately. However, in the fine details (chromatic aberration, flare, bokeh, etc.) I believe the L glass is superior.

Also, the crop factor comes into play. If we were able to compare edge distortion on a full-frame camera, it would be reasonable to expect the 17-40 to give far better results. If you plan to eventually upgrade to a 1.3x or full-frame camera, the L glass is probably the better choice.

[mdude85]

these reviews make it very difficult to justify an L glass purchase.

[rraman]

Thanks for taking time to do this comparison cmM!

This comparison combined with the fact that we have better control over color, sharpness while using digital, it really makes me wonder if it always makes sense to go for an "L"!

[Tom W]

I'd like to see some 100% crops, as well as some wide-open aperture shots.

Still, a good comparison.

[cmM]

I added full res jpegs. (links above the images).
Keep in mind, that these pictures were not post processed at all.
0 sharpening in C1, 0 sharpening or anything else in PS.

If you have an idea of instances where the differences will show more, please speak, and I'll be happy to exploit the crap out of 'em :P

[JX]

Good job on the comparisons. There is a difference. It is very apparent in the comparison of the 17-40L @ 35mm, f/4 shot vs. 18-55 @ 35mm, f/4.

__________________________________________________ __________

Jim

[rraman]

This reminds me of an older comparison between the "fantastic plastic" Tokina 19-35mm (the one with Hoya glass, not the cheaper Cosina-made version) and the 17-40mm L:

http://www.canonians.com/wideanglecompare.htm

...


Does any website have the comparison of Canon 18-55 EF-s vs. Tokina 19-35?

[blinking8s]

can we consolodate all personal reviews to one section? Those online reviews are helpful, but seeing other people on the forum you are a member of use and speak about gear is a lot more helpful to some

[ron chappel]

WHOA :shock:
This is just not right.You can't do a test between cheap and an expensive lenses both stopped down!
Of course they will be similar! :x everybody knows that cheap lenses are nearly as good as the very best @ f8-f11
The big differences show up wide open

The f4 shots are good but you need to use tripod and identical views to get consistancy
Sorry about my apparent grumpiness :oops: -i've just seen too many badly done tests lately
Please,if you get the chance,do some comparisons wide open or near wide open with bothe lenses

[EXA1a]

Good job on the comparisons. There is a difference. It is very apparent in the comparison of the 17-40L @ 35mm, f/4 shot vs. 18-55 @ 35mm, f/4.

__________________________________________________ __________

Jim
Well, the biggest and most obvious difference between the f4 shots are: different view and, more importantly, direct sunlight on the shot with 17-40 (contrast & color!) whereas the sun is gone for the 18-55 (dull and blueish). That's just not comparable at all.
--Jens--

[drisley]

Thanks again for the review!
Now instead of wasting $$ on the 17-40L, I can save my pennies for the 20D by using the kit lens and stopping down for those rare occassions when I shoot wide angle.
Nice!

[Tom W]

Interesting, the first pair has a very slight edge to the 17-40, particularly along edges where its better contrast shows through. The second pair of f/11 images gives the 17-40 a definate edge in contrast, and a little more sharpness.

The f/4 shots cannot really be compared due to differences in focal distance and lighting.

At f/8, I detected a little softness with the 17-40, almost like the camara moved. The 17-40 still had a slight edge in contrast, but was a little soft.

Thanks for putting the full images up - the kit lens stands up quite well when stopped down.

[cmM]

I will take some shots at f/4 as soon as I get the chance and put them up.

[c0ntr0lz]

thanks for the great review!!!
i was thinking of getting the 17-40 but now i see that there isn't too much difference i won't die to get one now
still thinking about the 12-24mm Sigma

[toonse]

Some of the other differences are being missed. Build quality, reliability, and most notably tendency to flare. The 17-40L is a fantastic lens when it comes to flaring (or lack thereof)

[drisley]

Actually, if you read this review you will see the 18-55 lens also has VERY good flare resistance!
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/

Perhaps it's only major weakness is chromatic abberation.
Again, for someone who rarely shoots wide angle, it's nice to know I dont have to spend $1000 cdn for the 17-40L

[RikWriter]

thanks for the great review!!!
i was thinking of getting the 17-40 but now i see that there isn't too much difference i won't die to get one now
still thinking about the 12-24mm Sigma

Get it man! You won't regret it.

[xrunner123]

WHOA :shock:
This is just not right.You can't do a test between cheap and an expensive lenses both stopped down!
Of course they will be similar! :x everybody knows that cheap lenses are nearly as good as the very best @ f8-f11
The big differences show up wide open


Sorry for a dumb question, but why are the differences better at wide open (I'm new to photography and just learning).

[ron chappel]

It can be a rather complex discussion but the simple version is-
When lenses are used wide open they are using all of the lens surface.
There's much more chance of optical problems rearing thier ugly heads
.Actually some problems get worse when the lens is stopped down but these problems are in the minority.Most are at their worst wide open.

Expensive lenses are designed and built to eleminate these problems as much as possible.Alot of money and effort is put into making them work as good or allmost as good wide open as when stopped down

So each lens will have a 'sweet spot' where it is at it's very best.For the great many lenses this is about f8-f11.Expensive lenses still have sweet spot but it isn't so pronounced because it is quite good wide open too

[J___]

It can be a rather complex discussion but the simple version is-
When lenses are used wide open they are using all of the lens surface.
There's much more chance of optical problems rearing thier ugly heads
.Actually some problems get worse when the lens is stopped down but these problems are in the minority.Most are at their worst wide open.

Expensive lenses are designed and built to eleminate these problems as much as possible.Alot of money and effort is put into making them work as good or allmost as good wide open as when stopped down

So each lens will have a 'sweet spot' where it is at it's very best.For the great many lenses this is about f8-f11.Expensive lenses still have sweet spot but it isn't so pronounced because it is quite good wide open too


sorry but i need to ask a noobquestion... .what's "stopped down"mean?

[ron chappel]

No problem J___!

Lenses have an aperture adjustment in them to allow more or less light through.
It's a multi bladed gadget that closes from the outside inwards equaly on all sides so that when at it's most closed position it has a tiny hole in the center.
Years ago,simple plates with different sized holes were used,the most common were 'waterford stops'.
So when you used any of these plates you were 'stopping down' the amount of light getting to the film
Now it's a slang term that can mean several things in photography but 'stopping down' a lens is the most common.

Now 1 stop is an increase of double the amount of light or the same word is used for halving the amount of light.
i.e you might say 'plus one stop' or 'minus one stop '

...and the magic of photographic interchangability comes into play here because film speed(ISO) and shutter speed are also rated in doubles and halves
So you can play with all kinds of combinations of shutter speed,ISO and aperture to get all kinds of effects -but still have the same correct amount of light hitting the film!! :)


*In case you're wondering, why is that when we look through a lens and stop it down,it doesn't get darker like it does on a camera--instead the aperture just blocks some of the image completely?
This is because the lens is made to focus an image onto a flat surface .Try to make it focus onto the back of our eyeball and it aint going to work-the optics of our eyes get in the way.
You CAN focus it onto anything flat and then look at it.That's how an SLR camera viewfinder works

[nosquare2003]

Note: Images are taken with my 300D on a tripod, RAW, manual everything, manual focusing (to infinity in most cases).

Which photos can I compare the sharpness? I haven't opened all the photos for slow internet connection. It seems that most objects are out of focus when it is manual focus to infinity.

[arumdevil]

most of these shots are at f/11 or f/8, surely some shots with the lenses wide open (or at least at the 18-55's widest aperture) would give a better indication of the difference between the two?

[RichieHatch]

I also have both of these lens. There are a few things that put the 17-40 in front for me. One is that there is virtually no CA (Chromatic Aberration) with the 17-40. Another is the increase in contrast which is considerable... the images from it look more punchy (altough not everybody wants this). Sharpness is also consistant throughout aperature range. The build quality and balance on the 300d (with grip) is perfect and weight, not uncomfortable after a day's use. Overall I definately think that this lens is a worthwhile upgrade from the 18-55....!

Richie

[cmM]

Note: Images are taken with my 300D on a tripod, RAW, manual everything, manual focusing (to infinity in most cases).

Which photos can I compare the sharpness? I haven't opened all the photos for slow internet connection. It seems that most objects are out of focus when it is manual focus to infinity.
Well, actually, most object from hyperfocal dist. to infinity are supposed to be IN focus. The images look soft because they are not processed.

[nosquare2003]

Note: Images are taken with my 300D on a tripod, RAW, manual everything, manual focusing (to infinity in most cases).

Which photos can I compare the sharpness? I haven't opened all the photos for slow internet connection. It seems that most objects are out of focus when it is manual focus to infinity.
Well, actually, most object from hyperfocal dist. to infinity are supposed to be IN focus. The images look soft because they are not processed.


Can you please explain how you took the photos with manual focus?

[cmM]

I don't exactly understand what you mean.

I switched the lens to Manual Focus and focused to infinity.∞

[nosquare2003]

To maximise DOF, it is not to manual focus at infinity, but the hyperfocal distance. Moreover, 1/2 distance of hyperfocal distance to infinity will appear sharp.

The link (or any search of "hyperfocal distance" in google) will explain better than I do:

http://www.wildthingsphoto.com/tips/tip9809.htm

[cmM]

The hyperfocal distance in my case (17mm, f/11, inf) is 3.5 ft. I don't have anything in the picture closer than that...

[nosquare2003]

Where was the infinity located at the lens marking when you took the shots?

(Please don't mind me asking...)

BTW, I suppose the 10D+17-40/4L without sharpening would perform better...

[Volatile]

This is exactly the decision I'm trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison. Like everyone else, 100% crops would be great...

[cmM]

Where was the infinity located at the lens marking when you took the shots?

(Please don't mind me asking...)

BTW, I suppose the 10D+17-40/4L without sharpening would perform better...
What do you mean where was the infinitly located at the lens marking? The infinity sign...

The 300D and the 10D have the same sensor (I think, so I doubt there would be any difference)

[cmM]

This is exactly the decision I'm trying to make. Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison. Like everyone else, 100% crops would be great...
Above the pics there are links to full size jpegs.

[nosquare2003]

Hi CmM

Just look at the first photo of the lenses 17-40/4L and the EFs one. There's an infinity mark, "a sideway mark of 8", in the lens of 17-40/4L. If you turn this infinity mark to coincide the white mark, then you set your manual focus at infinity.

If you really shot at infinity, it would be wrong for maximisation of DOF. (Please refer to the above link. Perhaps I'm trying to find another link...)

Well, I do not know whether you shoot at infinity or hyperfocal distance with reference to your previous posts. And thus I asked.

Thanks

[nosquare2003]

Another Google search:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/hyperfocal1.html

Sorry for the devil site but it has a comparison of focus at infinity and focus at hyperfocal distance.

[cmM]

I understand and I agree with you.

However, the hyperfocal distance in my photos' case is a few feet. There is nothing in that range, therefore maximizing the DOF would have very little effect on those pictures. They are soft because they are simply unprocessed.

Besides, how is this relevant to comparing the two lenses?

[ron chappel]

Ah ok.
I too wondered if you understood how hyperfocal works but i see now that most of the distant subjects will be in focus even if you couldn't set it exactly.
Hyperfocal is tricky when there are no distance scales on the lens :?
About the only reliable way to do it is to look up a scale of hyperfocal distances and find out where the exact focas point is for that f stop--then focus (auto or manual) on something at that distance

I must say that even though i previously said you didn't do the test very well,it *is* pretty well done if comparing for landscape use.One never uses a lens wide open for landscape of course :wink:
The soft images are not a problem at all-just download the large versions and fool around with them to your hearts content.


One hint i can give from hundreds(?!) of lens tests...take a few pics for each focal length/aperture part of each test and pick the best.Note also if too many are duds,this often shows that a mistake has been made somewhere

[leehal]

.One never uses a lens wide open for landscape of course :wink:



Sorry to hijack this thread, Ron can you clarify that please :D

[nosquare2003]

Thanks CmM. Since your test may affect others' lens purchase decision, I'd like to make sure that you did the tests properly. (For me, I've no interest in these two lenses.)

BTW, it's not fair to compare the lenses if they are not well focused. (P.S. focus is not a good word...)

[cmM]

.One never uses a lens wide open for landscape of course :wink:



Sorry to hijack this thread, Ron can you clarify that please :D
In a landscape you want the most DOF possible. The smaller the aperture, the more DOF.

[accord]

I am sorry, I find that the files for 17-40 & 18-55 are identical.
You can easily download the files to your hd and use "fc", a dos command to compare the two files, they are identical!!

Is this link a jok?

[Andy_T]

I am sorry, I find that the files for 17-40 & 18-55 are identical.


Obviously the links 'Hi res images' point to the same file on the server.

I recall, however, that the shown crops (no longer online) were different. Not much, but a bit.

I assume it's a glitch and nobody noticed so far.

Best regards,
Andy

[accord]

Then do you think the conclusion made still valid?

i.e. The difference between them are very very small?

[cmM]

Obviously the links 'Hi res images' point to the same file on the server.

I recall, however, that the shown crops (no longer online) were different. Not much, but a bit.

I assume it's a glitch and nobody noticed so far.

Best regards,
Andy
Yea, sorry about that, there have been a few changes to my website since I posted this review.

However, the full res files point to the right ones, not to the same file on the server.
The differences are minor though

[cmM]

Then do you think the conclusion made still valid?

i.e. The difference between them are very very small?
For the purpose illustrated above, yes. (Good light, f/8). And pretty much everyone was right. As far as image quality, it's at f/4 where the difference shows.

[accord]

cmM:
No, they are redirected to the same file. Please check.
Even you can right click for property, they shown the same link for the two files.

[cmM]

the links?
No... the names are similar, but not the same (for example there's : l1.jpg, s1.jpg, l2.jpg, s2.jpg)

[OviV]

cmm,

Even if you type in the url for the l1.jpg file, your server is redirecting to the s1.jpg file. At least that is what it is doing with me.

[cmM]

oh crap, you're right.
I'll doublecheck

**Edit: the 17-40 files are indeed missing, that's why the webserver redirects to the files with the closest filename.
I'll have to look for the files on my computer at home and find the ones from the 17-40 and upload them back.

[mr.photoguy]

•Samples
Overall picture quality, again (I guess :roll: ):
17-40L @ 17mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/l2.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revl2.jpg
18-55 @ 18mm, f/11
Click here (http://www.cmuntean.net/files/s2.jpg) for hi-res jpg
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug20revs2.jpg


... opinions ?

With these two images, you can see the 17-40L is sharper out at the edges. This can be noticed on the rocks, and the black pole on the right hand side.
You can also notice the Grass in the center is more in focus.

I think both lenses are great out the box, I more like the durability of the L, which is maninly what I would be paying for, along with the image quality.

[Webarcher]

I find the contrast en color of the 17-14 f/4 more vived thean taken with the 18-55 mm
And...the 17-40 is weather sealed if a filter is on the lens!

[griff2]

It's still the same image for both links.

I'd still like to see the comparison, since I know how soft the efs lens is, even at its "sweet spot", and I'm planning to upgrade to the 17-40L

[mr.photoguy]

It's still the same image for both links.

I'd still like to see the comparison, since I know how soft the efs lens is, even at its "sweet spot", and I'm planning to upgrade to the 17-40L
No it's not the same image.

Right click the image, and click properties. one is l2, and the other is s2.

[cmM]

it will all be fixed soon gentlemen, sorry about the image confusion, my website has been through some changes since I posted that review :-P

[mr.photoguy]

the 17-40 is on my future hit list definetly, I am just using my 18-55 to the fullest of it's potential right now. Even with that said, the 18-55 is a superb lens for the money, especially when you use it properly.

[eosster]

Hmmm, I still like my 17-40 over 18-55 which I've sold.

[olz]

Wohoo :lol:

This should be removed from the sticky section. The test pictures are still the same which makes the review totaly useless.:rolleyes:

Cheers

[cmM]

I know ... I'll fix them one day. Right now my computer is sittign on the floor taken apart. It's on top of my task list after I fix my computer.

[Gazamonk]

I know ... I'll fix them one day. Right now my computer is sittign on the floor taken apart. It's on top of my task list after I fix my computer.

Pics still dont show, 2010 and you still havent fixed your PC (wow) can I help. :-(

[delux]

Can someone else post some comparison pictures from these two lenses?

[watt100]

Can someone else post some comparison pictures from these two lenses?

dude - this thread is six years old!
and you don't want to buy the 18-55 (non IS) !

but if you want a comparison, try
www.photozone.de
or
www.the-digital-picture.com

[Kiwikat]

Can someone else post some comparison pictures from these two lenses?

dude - this thread is six years old!

Totally bw!.

[delux]

dude - this thread is six years old!
and you don't want to buy the 18-55 (non IS) !

but if you want a comparison, try
www.photozone.de
or
www.the-digital-picture.com

noob question. opps.

[Relaxtech]

It's funy camparision.

[Bsmooth]

Well not much of an effort now that the images aren't visible any longer. Yes it very funny indeed.
Another lost thread.

[Virto]

Why dredge this thread up? There are lots of more recent threads and reviews of both the 17-40 and the current 18-55 IS, which is vastly superior to the lens that was originally mentioned here...8 years ago.

[Bsmooth]

Because its here I guess, so it just stays here and never changes.