Passing from 18-55 to 17-40L: better results?

[massi.ra]

Thinking about this update in a few months:

replace my 18-55 with the beatiful 17-40L,

... but first I want to "squash" my 18-55 during holidays in August and see if it's more reasonable to spend money in other photography gear or go for the change with 17-40L.

I'd like to question the owners of both lenses (18-55 kit, 17-40L): is it worth enough this substitution?
I think the millimeters range of this lenses makes them a good "walk around" lens and it's what I need for the day-trips I generally go during my week-ends in Italy (architecture, countryside views, etc...), but I am not completely satisfied about the quality of my 18-55 at wide apertures; I only noticed good results from f8 to f11.

Hence .... apart from best manufacture of the17-40L, can you suggest me good reasons to make the "jump"?

Thanks! :)

[antaine]

I have the Sigma 18-50 (cheap one) and would be interested in replies to this post. Alternatives are the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8.

[mocca]

What you can expect is better sharpness at f/4 and smaller aperture and higher contrast. The kit lenses is not as bad as some ppl make it to be. It is actually very good for the price and pretty sharp stopped down to about f/7.1-f/9. The advantage of 17-40L is that it is pretty sharp wide open so you can shoot away at f/4 with little concern. I tested the 17-40L about three weeks ago and the main difference between the 17-40L and the kit lenses is contrast. The 17-40L give the picture more punch (both sharpness and contrast but contrast was very obvious to me) than the kit lenses.

Alternatively, if you don't take a lot of wideangle shots, you can get 28-135 IS USM. I find the sharpness and contrast of the 28-135 to be better than the kit lenses at all aperture settings and focal length. The 28-135 is a little soft wide open but at 28mm, you can stop down to about f/5.6 and around f/7.1 at 135mm to get very sharp pictures. Beside you will get two lenses to cover the rang eof 18mm to 135mm which are not too heavy or large for travelling. But if you take a lot of wideangle, 17-40L is the way to go.

MM

[massi.ra]

Alternatives are the Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8.

Hello Antaine; I was thinking about this Sigma f2.8 too (it is often told to be a good choice and a valid alternative to the 18-55), but more actracted by the 17-40L ... even if I most care about final results. I like the wider aperture (f2.88) of the Sigma lens.

Anyway .... I'm waiting wait for advices from the experts ... ;)

[massi.ra]

I tested the 17-40L about three weeks ago and the main difference between the 17-40L and the kit lenses is contrast. The 17-40L give the picture more punch (both sharpness and contrast but contrast was very obvious to me) than the kit lenses.


MM

Thanks for your contribute Mocca!
That's what I did want to hear; sometimes pics with 18-55 lack contrast basically and on the contrary it's what I have in pics taken with my 70-200 f4 and 85 f.18.
I'd like to get the same with a wide angle lens.

28-135 IS? Don't know. A bit doubtful to miss the wide angle. I wish I could leave during the week-ends with only one lens sometime, visit a city or a new place and have one lens for everything.
Do not care a lot about the money (:lol: exagerating of course), but if I would realize I can quit wide angles ... I think I would choose Canon 24-70L f2.8 instead of 28-135 IS, because I already have the 70-200f4, and seems a perfect finishing.

If anyone can post some 18-55 Vs 17-40L pics .... wellcome! :)

[michapma]

I'm wondering why you don't consider the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens? It's not as fast as the 17-40L above the very wide-angle range, but the IS helps compensate for this in terms of camera shake. It also doesn't enjoy quite the nice optics of the L-series lens, but it is a step up from the 18-55 kit lens you are using. I have this lens and if you really are looking for a great all-around lens I think you will find this one very tempting. It offers you nice performance but with extended range out to 85mm.

I have a friend with the 17-40L and obviously it is nice. I have the 17-85 and it is my general purpose lens. The 17-40L does better preventing distortion at the wide angles, but in my opinion it is less well suited as a general-purpose lens, and more expensive. I'd say it's better suited for regular wide-angle work, and would go well in combination with a telephoto zoom. The 17-85 can be frustrating shooting in low light without flash, which is why I got a cheap but great 50mm f/1.8 II to help out: it's so small and light you can stick it in the corner of even a small bag. The 17-85 also has decent build quality: I dropped it off a table in its first few weeks (major cringe) but no problems so far. :lol:

As far as comparing results, go to www.pbase.com, click on "camera database" and then Canon, and search for the lenses you want to compare. The site will then pull up random photos made with those lenses, and often even EXIF information is available.

[massi.ra]

Thanks michapma.
Yes, Ihad thought about 17-85 IS but a friend who tried a straight comparison with 17-40L said that the L lens offered pretty better results (I have just to believe him ... did not see this comparison); that said it's to be considered the longer reach of 17-85 (more versatile) and the stabilization; anyway I would consider the IS in the 17-85 only for pictures taken in low light conditions so you can easily shoot with slow times and get steady images, but don't think the IS could be the factor for helping me in my choice. IS seems to be a great "help factor" in lens with very long reach indeed.
I'm a bit confused now; I wish it could be much easier.

[Hellashot]

I remember seeing a comparison of these 2 lenses posted on here a while ago. 1 scene only - indoors with flash, maybe at 2 different focal lengths. There was virtually no difference in image quality. A word on a piece of equipment was a very slight bit clearer with the L lens, but from that shot alone there was no reason to need the L lens.

[Jackal]

Since I've been so happy with my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 I'll go ahead and recommend it. Sure it's only 28mm on the wide end but I don't mind it. I'll always have my kit lense with my JUST incase I need really wide. To be honest....my kit lense has not touched my camera since I got this Tamron.

The Tamron is fast and rediculously sharp.

[billh101]

I shot with the kit lens only while I waited to get the 17-40. The nice thing about the 17-40 is that I can shoot wide open with good sharpness. Stop it down a little and it's great. If you don't mind stopping down the already slow kit lens, it really isn't that bad. But, there's enough difference that I don't take the kit lens out of my bag any more. Now the bad new. For a "walk around" lens, the 17-40 don't reach very far. I often wish it were a little longer, but I need the wide end more often than the mid lengths. I also wish it were faster for manual focusing in low light, but the 16-35 is out of my price range. All in all, I'm happy with the lens. If you want to see samples, most of the pictures on my gallery were shot with the 17-40. -Bill

www.pbase.com/billhuegerich

[massi.ra]

Thanks for the comment guys.
It has been helpfull; now I just need to shoot more with my 18-55 and make up my mind on what I need more. Decision will be in keeping the 18-55 as my wide lens for landscapes and then add a "walk around" lens like EF 24-70L or Tamron 28-75 (to complete the couple with my 70-200f4), or replacing the kit lens with 17-40L.
My next holidays will bring the right answer, after considering which focal distance I need more for my photography.
Thanks for the link Bill, nice pics.

[Andy_T]

Also consider the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX.

It should be about on par with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 but 4 mm wider.

Best regards,
Andy

[massi.ra]

Thanks Andy; it makes sense ... I like starting from 24mm.
Do you know of any straight comparison on the net between these 3 lens?
Canon 24-70L
Sigma 24-70EX
Tamron 28-75Di

[Redstorm]

Thanks Andy; it makes sense ... I like starting from 24mm.
Do you know of any straight comparison on the net between these 3 lens?
Canon 24-70L
Sigma 24-70EX
Tamron 28-75Di

The Tamron 28-75mm Di f2.8 is a legendary lens that is rated as good as its Canon counterpart of the same or about the same range. It's a very sharp lens which has earned critical aclaims from users and photographic websites' review. As for the Canon and Sigma 24-70, I can't comment on them since I have never used the lenses.

[WepWaWep]

Hi,

I have the same camera and started with the kit lens and, you guessed it, went to the 17-40. The main arena for this lens is landscape work and architecture as my walk around lens. The biggest difference I have noticed is that the 17-40 is much sharper and the colors are cleaner than the 18-55. I shoot with a strong emphasis on wildlife but during walks in the city with my kids I rely on the lens for just shooting the daily happenings. If I wish to change strategies and concentrate on people, I throw the 100 macro on the camera and use it as a short telephoto lens.

I know I have a couple of small gaps in my line up yet, but I have been able to get pretty good results with the lenses I have until I can add the others I plan to purchase in the future. The 17-40 has been a great compliment to the set and spends as much time out of the bag as any of the other lenses I own.

Wep

[massi.ra]

Ummm ...
Nice considerations. I really would like to get the 17-40L and the best combination would be adding in the future a 50 1.4, but I'm not so sure if would be better to start with a more versatile standard zoom like the Tamron or the Canon (28-75, 24-70) to fill the gap till my 70-200.

[michapma]

Thanks michapma.
Yes, Ihad thought about 17-85 IS but a friend who tried a straight comparison with 17-40L said that the L lens offered pretty better results (I have just to believe him ... did not see this comparison); that said it's to be considered the longer reach of 17-85 (more versatile) and the stabilization; anyway I would consider the IS in the 17-85 only for pictures taken in low light conditions so you can easily shoot with slow times and get steady images, but don't think the IS could be the factor for helping me in my choice. IS seems to be a great "help factor" in lens with very long reach indeed.
I'm a bit confused now; I wish it could be much easier.

Don't let the IS dominate the way you think about this lens. I think the main points for you may be its range and that it has very usable performance. This is possibly why it is a highly recommended startup lens in this forum.

At f/4-5.6, it is not a very fast lens. However, you've stated you would like to use it mostly outdoors for walkaround and architecture, so speed may not be so important -- this is also why IS is probably secondary for you. It will definitely perform better than your kit lens, but again not as nice as an L-series lens. I have especially noticed chromatic aberration near the edges and a falloff of sharpness in the center when shooting at 17mm. Again, performance of a lens like the 17-40L is better, but this was nothing heart breaking. I can imagine this kind of issue (on any lens) might bother you for example in architectural shots where you have to use the shortest focal length to get everything you want in the frame; some lines near the edges might have noticeable distortion and aberration.

Min aperture changes to f/4.5 at 24mm, f/5 at 35mm, and above about 45mm stays at f/5.6. Again this is probably not an issue for outdoors shooting. The IS has probably been added to this lens to make up for the lack of speed in low-light shooting, and obviously the IS adds to the cost of the lens. If the IS is not very useful to you you're possibly better off looking at some of these other lenses with a similar range and similar or even better performance. All I can tell you is it's an excellent lens, my only complaint is the speed, since I find myself doing a lot of indoors shooting without flash.

Edit: I just realized I am kind of contradicting myself: Don't let the IS dominate your thinking, but if you don't need the IS there may be a cheaper lens out there. :lol: I guess what I really want to say is that it offers very good performance for that range, but there may be other lenses without IS in that range that have similiar performance for a lower price or better performance for a similar price. Also don't forget that it too is an EF-S lens, so it has other advantages as well. Besides the crop factor, the lenses are supposed to be made smaller and more economically than similar purpose lenses.

[massi.ra]

Wow Michapma ... that's a complete answer!
Thanks a lot, so kind.

Here in Europe the 350DKit is mostly proposed with the 18-55 in shops; going back to the time I purchased my camera (and with more experience), I would have wanted the solution with the 17-85IS. Surely better results (as you said) and the field covered from 17 up to 85mm is one more point to choose this versatile lens.
Never mind ... I'll see and play a bit with the 18-55 and see what will happen.

[rich_yau]

I have made the same lens considerations myself. I mostly need an indoor lens for wedding receptions. I think i can live w/o wide angle so im shoppng around for a 28-135 IS

[Redstorm]

Hello Antaine; I was thinking about this Sigma f2.8 too (it is often told to be a good choice and a valid alternative to the 18-55), but more actracted by the 17-40L ... even if I most care about final results. I like the wider aperture (f2.8:cool: of the Sigma lens.

Anyway .... I'm waiting wait for advices from the experts ... ;)

If u want the Canon 17-40mmf4 L USM, you may want to consider the Tamron 17-35mm f28.-4 lens which is highly rated by many users. Many consider it's image quality to be as good as, if not better than, the Canon lens. Take a look here:


http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index2.html

[ggibbs1971]

I originally started with the Sigma 18-125 as my walk around. However I found it was too slow for me, I do quite a bit of indoor shots w/o the flash. I sold it and got the Tamron 28-75/2.8. I am very happy with it. I traded my 50/1.8 for the kit lens, thought I would need it for wide angle. However I never used & just sold it on E bay. Now I have the Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 35/2 & 85/1.8 as my low light primes, especially at the wide end. I may not get a wide angle zoom.

Decisions to be made everyday about a different lens.

Geoff

[buze]

I have the 18-50 f2.8 Sigma, and I'm very happy with it. I hesitated s LOT over the 17-40L but finaly that f2.8 won. It's also much cheaper!
Here's one of many samples:
http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/ant/S/IMG_4885.JPG

[massi.ra]

If u want the Canon 17-40mmf4 L USM, you may want to consider the Tamron 17-35mm f28.-4 lens which is highly rated by many users. Many consider it's image quality to be as good as, if not better than, the Canon lens. Take a look here:


http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index2.html

Wow! I like this comparison ...:shock:
Never considered Tamron 17-35 ... interesting piece of glass it seems.
I'll get some more information about it; thanks!

[massi.ra]

I have the 18-50 f2.8 Sigma, and I'm very happy with it. I hesitated s LOT over the 17-40L but finaly that f2.8 won. It's also much cheaper!
Here's one of many samples:


That's a really nice picture Buze; I really like it.
Yes .. I was told by some Italian friend to have a look to the Sigma lens 18-50; i like also the f2.8 more the f4 of the Canon of course.
Best would be to have the chance of a straight comparison between Tamron, Canon and Sigma; I think I'll have a look for a shop in my city which can have the 3 of them (difficult) and get some shoot on the same subject outside the shop. That would be for me the best method for judging: feel the lens in my hands and see the shoot at home on my PC.

Gibbs1971: yes I like primes too. My 85 is the best lens I own, but for a wide angle lens I think is better for me to get a zoom .... much more versatile to shoot landscapes and cities architecture.

[Andy_T]

Do you know of any straight comparison on the net between these 3 lens?
Canon 24-70L
Sigma 24-70EX
Tamron 28-75Di

Look here: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

Best regards,
Andy

[RichardtheSane]

If it would help I have the EF-S 18-55 and the EF 17-40
I could do a side by side of you want so you know what they offer - let me know.
I should note both my 18-55 and 17-40 are sharp copies...

[massi.ra]

If it would help I have the EF-S 18-55 and the EF 17-40
I could do a side by side of you want so you know what they offer - let me know.
I should note both my 18-55 and 17-40 are sharp copies...


Yes please !!!!!!!!
Thanks a lot Richard; that would be very kind of you.
Take your time and let me know.

Richard, the best would be to have a straight comparison between the 2 lens at different apertures and above all the larger ones; I noticed that 18-55 works quite fine from about f8 to f11 (even if the pics are a bit soft), but it's not good enough for me at lower apetrures (f3.5, f4, ....).


x Andy: thanks for the link.

[kram]

Sharing my thought process and hope it helps.

- Kit lens - Has a good wide angle that you cant get unless you are willing to spend a lot more. Is not the best lens out there in terms of quality plus need one for low light situations.

- That left me with a choice of 50 1.8 for low light and a typical 24-70/28-75 range better lens. Prefer a zoom as it offers extra flexibility and so picked up the Tamron 28-75. A better lens in the mid range and basically my walkaround lens. But trust me, there will be situations when you will want the wide angle of the kit lens.

- Long range, top picks here are the 70-200 or the 70-300/75-300 or 100-400 depending on need and budget.

There you go....that explains what I have (kit +28-75) and what I just acquired (70-200 f4).

[lancea]

As someone who went down the path of buying a 17-40 as my first "good" lens, my thoughts are these (I've already posted them at least a few times): the 17-40 didn't give me enough over the 18-55 kit lens. Doing it again, I would have first bought the 70-200 f/4, then probably the 10-22 EF-S.

As others have suggested, if you're simply looking for a replacement for the 18-55 then the 17-85 EF-S would be an excellent choice. Many mention the possibility that it will become obsolete as EF-S cameras are no longer produced. I've been building PCs for around 20 years (think that's when the 4.77MHz machines came out) so I am very used to having my purchases quickly devalued :) If you get even a couple of years use out of it, that will be worthwhile. More likely you'll use it for 5 years or more.

But since I did buy the 17-40 then the 70-200, I use them almost exclusively. There is a clear gap (which I do notice quite a lot) and I think a 50 f/1.4 would fill it nicely. If the 17-85 came down in price I'd still like one of those - but then my 17-40 really would be redundant.

The 17-40 would very likely be purchased if I get a camera with a 1:1 sensor because it will then be a very nice wide-angle. It's not all that wide on my 20D with its 1.6 factor.

[buze]

Having the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 didn't replace the 50 f1.4 at all in my bag; the 50 is still my primary lens. I use the 18-50 for indoor (where the 50 can be a bit long), groups, or In the case of the shot I posted, landscapes...
If I need a "walkaround" in plain daylight, especialy if I know I won't be able to change lens easily - I pick the 18-200 without hesitation...

All other cases, 50 or Yummy 85 it is :D I really like to go around town with the 50/85 and a ND4 filter on. Can't wait to add the 135mm f2 to the belt too :D

[massi.ra]

As someone who went down the path of buying a 17-40 as my first "good" lens, my thoughts are these (I've already posted them at least a few times): the 17-40 didn't give me enough over the 18-55 kit lens. Doing it again, I would have first bought the 70-200 f/4, then probably the 10-22 EF-S.

As others have suggested, if you're simply looking for a replacement for the 18-55 then the 17-85 EF-S would be an excellent choice. Many mention the possibility that it will become obsolete as EF-S cameras are no longer produced. I've been building PCs for around 20 years (think that's when the 4.77MHz machines came out) so I am very used to having my purchases quickly devalued :) If you get even a couple of years use out of it, that will be worthwhile. More likely you'll use it for 5 years or more.

But since I did buy the 17-40 then the 70-200, I use them almost exclusively. There is a clear gap (which I do notice quite a lot) and I think a 50 f/1.4 would fill it nicely. If the 17-85 came down in price I'd still like one of those - but then my 17-40 really would be redundant.

The 17-40 would very likely be purchased if I get a camera with a 1:1 sensor because it will then be a very nice wide-angle. It's not all that wide on my 20D with its 1.6 factor.

Thanks everyone for the comments; I do not want to appear totaly lost … but I think I am.

Now … from one point of view, I am now sure that the Canon 17-40L is for sure a very good lens indeed (held once in my hands and it’s also rocky), from an other point of view comments like Lancea’s above is quite common to be heard in Italy too. Difference between 18-55 and 17-40L seems not to be one you can shout: “Wow!” (even if the difference seems to be great). That’s what happen after a comparison of a pic from 18-55 Vs. my prime 85 1.8 (yes … wow!) even if cannot compare the same focal length.

So ... a more clever idea for my purposes would be buying for example an ultra wide lens (on my 350D would be a standard wide) like Sigma 12-24 or EF-S 10-22 and have a totaly new and different lens … and then fill the gap till my 20-200f4 with a Tamron 28-75 or Canon 24-70L (depending on money of course!).

kind and patient foreign friends ... what do you think? :)
Is any of you trying this combinations?

More or less the possible combinations would be:
- 17-40L, 50 1.4 and 70-200f4L (already have this zoom)
- 12-24 (or 10-22), 28-75 (or 24-70L) and then my 70-200f4L

Replacing my 18-55 with a couple like 12-24 and 24-70 (or 10-22/28-75) seems better to me. :idea:

I am sure this is quite a common question for many users ... but please .... HELP ME! :confused:

[benhasajeep]

Very handy link on the comparision.

[massi.ra]

If it would help I have the EF-S 18-55 and the EF 17-40
I could do a side by side of you want so you know what they offer - let me know.
I should note both my 18-55 and 17-40 are sharp copies...

Just opening again this thread to know if there's any chance to have "the side by side" by the kind RichardtheSane!
Let me know ... :) ; thank you.

[JulianL]

Also consider the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX.

It should be about on par with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 but 4 mm wider.

Best regards,
Andy

I have the Sigma lens and the extra 4mm is not that great a difference. I have several gripes with that lens also. It is large and requires 82mm filters, it is slow to focus and the motor is noisy, the barrel binds when zoomed in close (maximum extension), the lens creeps when pointed down, the on camera flash is useless with this lens (unless you like half moon lens shadows in your pics) and it is too easy to accidentally switch the lens from autofocus to manual.

I have the 17-40 and I love it. My only complaint is that it doesn't reach out far enough as some others have pointed out. It isn't very wide on a 1.6x crop factor camera and doesn't give that wide angle effect like it does on my film camera but it is a great walk around lens on a digital.

[snappa]

Just recently got into digital photography after many years of film SLR. I bought a 20D with the kit lens. I struggled to get a sharp picture before accepting that I was at fault rather than the lens. However by this time I had ordered a 17-40. I have to tell you the difference is remarkable.
I went out over the weekend, with the 17-40, and snapped away at anything and everything. I could not take much time over any shot as I was in company and nobody wanted to hang around while I made a meal out of taking a photograph.
When I got home and downloaded my snaps I was gobsmacked. The two lenses are as different as chalk and cheese. They should be considering the difference in price but it was nice to know I had not wasted my money.
I now need to get out, on my own, and try to get the very best out of my 17-40. It is an awesome lens !

[massi.ra]

Yes!

it is a great walk around lens on a digital



17-40. It is an awesome lens !


Your comments are so wellcome .. :)
I've just found a used 17-40 from a private in Italy. Hopefully we'll meet on friday and have my new "L" lens.
I'm sure it's going to be a good walk-around lens; actually I keep using a lot my 18-55 and noticed that it's a perfect focal lenght for my trips. 17-40L is a bit shorter but ... never mind ... short focals is what I use more.

I just need better results than 18-55 ... that's why I'm going fot the change; pics taken with my 70-200 and 85mm are so different compared to the pics taken with 18-55 ... even if I heard someone saying that results are not as stunning as ones obtained with a lens like 70-200f4.

Max