18-55 to 17-40L question

[fenix]

hey guys, i searched and i couldnt seem to find a definite bold answer. im really thinking of upgrading my kit lens to the 17-40! however the 18-55 that came with the drebel seems to be a great copy, and stopped down at f/8-11 its pretty sharp imo. to the guys that upgraded from the kit lens to the 17-40, does the +$500 more really worthed? at first experience of the lens, was there a little night and day difference? or it was just for the built quality reasons.. im currently in a budget, and the faster 16-35 is not what im aiming for right now. appreciate it

[Scottes]

I have both lenses. I'd be hard pressed to spend $500 on the upgrade. I'd rather buy another lens that was completely different, like a 70-200.

The 17-40 is defitnitely better, but $500 better when you've already got that range covered...? I don't know. Unless you a high-quality landscape-only person, otherwise I'd think long and hard about a different length of lens.

[jbradc]

It really depends on what you are going to do with the images. If you get 4x6's made at your local lab or Ofoto, either lens will do. However if you are going to have large prints (8x10 or larger) you will start to see a difference. That has been my experience, I have had images I made with the 17-40 L printed up to 11x14 and they are tack sharp.

[Andy_T]

Fenix,

I have another suggestion for you ...

- Tokina 17/3.5 AT-X ($ 350) and
- Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI ($ 330)

The Tokina prime takes care of your wide angle needs, and the Tamron is a great walk-around lens that will give you a constant 2.8 aperture in the normal range.

Best regards,
Andy

[Hellashot]

- Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI ($ 330)


I'd not recommend buying "digitally integrated" lenses that will only fit one sensor size when sensors size increase quickly, where a lens can be good for years and years. A regular lens will work on a digital and a film SLR where a digital lense won't work on a film SLR.

[Andy_T]

I'd not recommend buying "digitally integrated" lenses that will only fit one sensor size when sensors size increase quickly, where a lens can be good for years and years.

Thank you for the information.

Please also provide a link with actual evidence that the Tamron 28-75/2.8 does not work well on full frame cameras. :rolleyes:

Best regards,
Andy

[Phil V]

I'd not recommend buying "digitally integrated" lenses that will only fit one sensor size when sensors size increase quickly, where a lens can be good for years and years. A regular lens will work on a digital and a film SLR where a digital lense won't work on a film SLR.

Except the Tamron Di lens will work on a 35mm film body. I would also avoid buying a lens designed for the small sensor, however I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that sensor sizes will increase incrementally. In fact I'd go further, I believe that APS sized sensors are with us for a long time to come.

Miniaturisation is the trend in electronics, and always has been. You'll see a 100mpixel APS sized sensor before you'll see a $500 full frame DSLR. :shock:

Oh, and the answer to the original post, the 17-40 is great if you need the build quality, or the wide open sharpness. But if you're stopping down and not expecting massive prints the 18-55 is more than capable.

[Kinger]

Iam one of those that have upgraded to 17-40L, and have not looked back. I find the 17-40 to not only be sharper, but I also find that there is less of a need for photoshop to bring out the best colors in my shots. Then of course the build quality and feel left me speechless the first time I picked it up.

[Mark_Cohran]

If you're only going to shoot at f8 or more, and if you don't care about build quality (or other lens factors such as bokeh, saturation, contrast, etc.), then you probably don't have a reason to upgrade. If, however, you want a brighter viewfinder image, a constant aperture across the zoom range, and an image that "pops" a bit more, then the upgrade is probably in order.

[Cadwell]

I'd not recommend buying "digitally integrated" lenses that will only fit one sensor size when sensors size increase quickly, where a lens can be good for years and years. A regular lens will work on a digital and a film SLR where a digital lense won't work on a film SLR.

The Tamron SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di is designed to work on both APS-C and full frame sensors. It will also work on a film body. Your understanding of what "Di" signifies in Tamron's lens designation is obviously incorrect.

[ed2day]

I recently upgraded from the kit lens to the 17-40. I'm happy. Was it worth it? That's such a subjective thing. I second the previous poster that it depends on your use. IF you shoot landscapes and IF you use a tripod and IF the minimum you print out is 8x10 (such as the case with me) then the differerence is substantial. To me it was worth it. My 18-55 was also quite poor wide open and I did not like having to keep that in the back of my mind. If you shoot mostly handheld 4x6's you may find the kit lens quite adequate. My suggestion would be to buy($70) or borrow the 50mm 1.8 if you don't already have it and do a comparison. If you are satisfied with how the kit lens stacks up against it, then the 17-40 probably won't be worth the cost to you.

[fenix]

thanks for the suggestion guys, really appreciate it. i guess im going to save some more and stick with the 18-55 for a while..