Test EF17-40L v's EF24-105L IS (56K unfriendly)

[Buggbairn]

Finally, my two new lenses have arrived

My 17-40L has a rival, the new kid on the block, the 24-105 L IS.

I've put together this little run of shots not just as a comparison but also I'd like folks to give me their opinions on how good they think my copies are performing.

Set-up was:
No Filters just hoods
Tripod mounted
Mirror Lock-up
Cable remote
Shot in RAW, converted in PSE 4
Only PP'ing done was USM at 70/0.6/1

Although the weather was gorgeous the harsh light of a summers afternoon may have played with the white & colours a little.

Here goes

(1) 24-105 L IS | 45mm | f9 | 1/250s | ISO100



(2) 17-40L | 40mm | f9 | 1/250s | ISO100




100 % Crops of above images

These crops have not been compressed they are hosted on my Photobucket account at origional file size after crop

(3) 24-105 L IS 100% Crop



(4) 17-40L 100% Crop



Thats it folks

I hope this is of some benefit to others, this test was not done in Lab conditions by a Pro tester (Heck the photo's squint)

As I said I'd appreciate folks views on how well they think my lenses held up in the not so helpfull harsh light.

Any questions ?? Fire away !!

I have also compiled a short lens test of the EF-S 10-22mm v's EF 17-40L

[darktiger]

Better color, a lot sharper...I love my 24-105...

[BigBlueDodge]

Well, both pictures are stopped down to f/9. I'm willing to bet the kit lens (18-55) would offer just as good of pictures if stopped down that much. You won't really gain much from a comparison like this. You need to take the same pictures at f/4, to see if your lens is sharp. ALL lenses are sharp around f/5.6 +. And if you add USM to them, you've pretty much equalized the lenses.

The better test would be to place both on tripod, with mirror lock up. Shoot at f/4 at ISO 100. Take the jpg's and don't do ANY post processing to them. Post 100% crops of each and then we can tell you how your copies are performing.

[lmelendez]

Originally Posted by darktiger

Better color, a lot sharper...I love my 24-105...

Funny how things are sometimes relative. I noticed some difference between the two, being the 24-105 better.... but to me, the difference is soo tiny, it doesn't justify getting the 24-105 (for wide angle shots anyway).

Now, considering the 24-105 has IS... well, yeah... it might be a better choice for you.

Both pictures look great to me... but again, I'm just a beginner!

Leo.

[mrclark321]

Congrats on the new lens, other issues to consider are colour and contrast besides sharpness and yours look good.

Dan

[JonathanS]

As I said on your other post, I am thinking of getting a 17-40 would be my first L (never thought I would have one), but if I might ask a question... Do you like your 17-40L, or do you think that you would have been better off with something else now that you have had it for a while?

[Double Negative]

Quite honestly, the test is a little pointless. Stopped down to this aperture it won't tell you much, plus they're two different kinds of lenses. If you compared the 17-40mm to a 16-35mm perhaps, or a 24-70mm to the 24-105mm it would mean a little more. Running a USM pass on a test image ruins it for comparison sake. Finally, the focal lengths differ as shot by 5mm.

Nevertheless, both images look great - and you should be happy with the lenses. Congrats!

[mbze430]

Umm someone deleted my post, but still it is pointless, and totally agree with Dlb Neg.

[Buggbairn]

Originally Posted by JonathanS

As I said on your other post, I am thinking of getting a 17-40 would be my first L (never thought I would have one), but if I might ask a question... Do you like your 17-40L, or do you think that you would have been better off with something else now that you have had it for a while?

I've had my 17-40L for about 6 months, I thought about getting rid of it when I got the 10-22mm and the 24-105mm but I love it so much I'm hanging onto it for the time being

Originally Posted by Double Negative

Quite honestly, the test is a little pointless. Stopped down to this aperture it won't tell you much, plus they're two different kinds of lenses. If you compared the 17-40mm to a 16-35mm perhaps, or a 24-70mm to the 24-105mm it would mean a little more. Running a USM pass on a test image ruins it for comparison sake. Finally, the focal lengths differ as shot by 5mm.

Nevertheless, both images look great - and you should be happy with the lenses. Congrats

I appreciate your honesty D.N

Lens testing is something I have never taken up before, to be honest I just wanted others to give me an opinion on my lenses but instead of posting another thread titled "Is my lens sharp" I thought I'd elaborate a little.

Perhaps I should do the old Focus test when I get time

[Double Negative]

Originally Posted by Buggbairn

Perhaps I should do the old Focus test when I get time

Nah. They look fine. Go out and shoot.

[Buggbairn]

Originally Posted by Double Negative

Nah. They look fine. Go out and shoot.

Will do Boss

Does anyone know any focus tests I could do with Beer bottles and Bbq's ?

[rklepper]

Originally Posted by Buggbairn

Will do Boss

Does anyone know any focus tests I could do with Beer bottles and Bbq's ?

Yes, eat and drink while you take photos.

[rklepper]

On a more serious note. It is a little hard to tell since each photo is at a different focal length and each crop is a different size. That being said, I think you would be hard pressed to tell any real difference between the 2.