Another durn lens test 17-40 (L) and 18-55 kit lens

[JZaun]

Ok you know I am looking for a wide lens. I tested the 17-85 against the 18-55 and sent the 17-85 back. My 18-55 kit lens seems hard to beat! so I ordered the famous 17-40mm (L) lens here is the results of my test. It just barely beats out the kit lens. Wow that kit lens for $100 ain't bad at all! I think I will keep the 17-40 (L) but I think I am paying a lot for just a little better image! What do you think?

Kit lens
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5118a-med.jpg
17-40
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5117a-med.jpg
Kit lens (crop from above)
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5118b.jpg
17-40 (crop from above)
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5117b.jpg
Kit lens
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5118c.jpg
17-40
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5117c.jpg

JZ

[DocFrankenstein]

awwww...

i want that press soooo bad :(

[JZaun]

awwww...

i want that press soooo bad :(


:lol: :lol:

Mr Dillon can have you one in 3 days :?

JZ

[stoneylonesome]

Maybe you can help me out here the 300D kit lens is supposed to be designed for digital format so I guess there is no multiplier factor (1.6 for the 10D) so when the say it's 18-55mm than its a true number not like a standard EF lens where an 18-55mm would be equal to x1.6= 29-88mm on a 35mm camera, so I guess my question is will this lens work on the 10D, I've heard that the (s) lens won't work.

OOOPS I guess I should just check with Canon first :lol: :lol:
A standard zoom exclusively for the EOS Digital Rebel SLR camera with APS-C size image circle equivalent to an approx. 28-90mm focal length. Compact and ultra-lightweight with impressive close-focusing ability of 0.9 ft (0.28m). Features optimized coating for digital imaging sensor to minimize ghost images and flare. The lens can only be mounted on the Digital Rebel with shorter back focus than ordinary EF lenses.

[JZaun]

Maybe you can help me out here the 300D kit lens is supposed to be designed for digital format so I guess there is no multiplier factor (1.6 for the 10D) so when the say it's 18-55mm than its a true number not like a standard EF lens where an 18-55mm would be equal to x1.6= 29-88mm on a 35mm camera, so I guess my question is will this lens work on the 10D, I've heard that the (s) lens won't work.

OOOPS I guess I should just check with Canon first :lol: :lol:
A standard zoom exclusively for the EOS Digital Rebel SLR camera with APS-C size image circle equivalent to an approx. 28-90mm focal length. Compact and ultra-lightweight with impressive close-focusing ability of 0.9 ft (0.28m). Features optimized coating for digital imaging sensor to minimize ghost images and flare. The lens can only be mounted on the Digital Rebel with shorter back focus than ordinary EF lenses.

The 18-55 on the 300D, 20D, 10D, is equal to it X 1.6 or a 28.8 - 88mm lens. I read about folks cuting the back off the 18-55 lens to make it work on a 10D but I don't know how well it works.

JZ

[Adam Hicks]

Wow.. that's an intriguing test. I think I'll just get an 18-55 for cheap for those times when I need wider than my 28-75. Nice work and nice comparison!

[Theo]

Jerry,

Nice INDOORS w\flash comparisions! My visual findings with the two shooting at Ambient lighting and Equal Shutter-Aperature-Focal Lengths had similiar results! The 17-40 had a tad better color rendition, slightly sharper focus with maybe better resolution, but found the 17-40 "darker" than the 18-55! Not enough quality improvements to justify 6X the price for the 17-40L!

However, OUTSIDE in the Mid to bright Daylight settings the 17-40L Came Alive!! Vibrant Colors, Superb Bokeh, Excellent Resolution and 3-D like Contrast, Wow!!! The kit lens did just the Opposite with blown highlights, washed out colors, fair Bokeh and a drop in resolution!!

Since I had Identical Camera Settings, main differences appeared to be in the Quality of Glass!!! Decided to Keep the 17-40L for my Main Landscape Wide Angle Equipment!!!

Ted

[Molydood]

well I would be intriged to see some outdoor tests then, because these indoor shots are identical to me.
Can anybody else see a difference here?

[JZaun]

well I would be intriged to see some outdoor tests then, because these indoor shots are identical to me.
Can anybody else see a difference here?

The easiest way to see the difference is look at the writing in the pic's. The 17-40 is better but not by a lot. You may have to go back and forth a few times. It is easier if you can download the pic and jump from one to the next in PS.

JZ

Here are the out door shots. Look at the tower.

Kit
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5118d-med.jpg
17-40
http://www.bytegallery.com/data/3104/5117d-med.jpg

JZ

[defordphoto]

In that last sample the 17-40 shows its colors (and) contrast and totally blows the kit lens into the water.

[Scottes]

There's definitely a difference in the tower, that's for sure.

But if I sold the 17-40 I could get the 10-22mm.... Oh, what to do... ?

[yb98]

can you give us the aperture of your test shots ?
usually the kit lens is almost as good as an L lens at f8 but at other apertures you can see a big difference
I did the same mistake when comparing the kit lens with the 50mm 1.8
look at this post :
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33438&highlight=

Yacine.

[JZaun]

can you give us the aperture of your test shots ?
usually the kit lens is almost as good as an L lens at f8 but at other apertures you can see a big difference
I did the same mistake when comparing the kit lens with the 50mm 1.8
look at this post :
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33438&highlight=

Yacine.

Inside loading bench shots, both lens @ F8, Crop pic's the same
Calendar on wall 17mm @ f5.6 18mm @ f4.5
Outside both @ f8

I do think the 17-40 is better than the kit lens but personally I still don't see it blowing it away. If the shots were not side by side and you didn't know which was which it would be hard to pick the better of the two. Again for $100 the kit lens is just durn good..

But I'm gonna keep the 17-40 (L) :)

JZ

[Danny Boy]

I would have to agree w/ RFM. The 17-40 is far superior to the kit lens for the outdoor shots, which is what it is primarily used for... landscape. Is it worth the extra money?? In my opinion... yes.

My 2 cents.

[ron chappel]

Cheap zooms will allways do their best at around f8-11 and often come close to the better zooms when both are compared at that setting.
What is this test done at?

A pricier zoom's main strengths are near wide open where is as good as when stopped down -or nearly so.

In the end there is no amount of testing or excuses that can make me like the 18-55.
Yes it is good-but it just isn't good ENOUGH :cry:

And while the L lens is a great ,it is just too expensive.What i (and i'm sure a great many others) want is something in between.
The new tamrons and sigmas look promissing :)