Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 Aug 2004 (Friday) 20:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 17-40 vs. 18-55 review

 
cmM
Goldmember
Avatar
5,705 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Chicago / San Francisco
     
Aug 20, 2004 20:21 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

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:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


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 (external link) for hi-res jpg
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

18-55 @ 18mm, f/11
Click here (external link) for hi-res jpg
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


-Overall picture quality, again (I guess :roll: ):
17-40L @ 17mm, f/11
Click here (external link) for hi-res jpg
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

18-55 @ 18mm, f/11
Click here (external link) for hi-res jpg
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


-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
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

18-55 @ 35mm, f/4
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


-Colors:
17-40L @ 17mm, f/8
Click here (external link) for hi-res jpg
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

18-55 @ 18mm, f/8
Click here (external link) for hi-res jpg

IMAGE: http://www.cmuntean.ne​t/images/aug20revs4.jp​g

•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 ?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
48,204 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 4349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Aug 20, 2004 20:27 |  #2

Awesome cmM!

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

Thanks.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
Avatar
8,860 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2002
     
Aug 20, 2004 23:42 |  #3

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!


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panza
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined Aug 2002
Location: Norway
     
Aug 20, 2004 23:45 |  #4

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.


Canon Eos 1D MK4 | Canon Eos 5 | Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyquest
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Outside of Chicago
     
Aug 20, 2004 23:48 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

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.


Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Aug 20, 2004 23:57 |  #6

drisley wrote:
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:


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cmM
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
5,705 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Chicago / San Francisco
     
Aug 21, 2004 00:15 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

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

DocFrankenstein wrote:
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,

cmM wrote:
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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Aug 21, 2004 00:23 |  #8

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.foto​pic.net/p6244664.html (external link)

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


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slejhamer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,758 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2002
     
Aug 21, 2004 07:25 |  #9

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.c​om/wideanglecompare.ht​m (external link)

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.


Mitch

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdude85
Senior Member
391 posts
Joined Jul 2004
     
Aug 21, 2004 08:24 |  #10

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rraman
Senior Member
Avatar
786 posts
Joined Oct 2003
Location: New York
     
Aug 21, 2004 09:59 |  #11

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"!


Raman
5D Mark II | 40D | Canon 17-40mm f/4 L| Canon 50 mm f/1.8 | Canon 100mm macro f/2.8
www.theZenArt.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Avatar
12,743 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
     
Aug 21, 2004 10:18 |  #12

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

Still, a good comparison.


Tom
5D III, 70D, & various lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cmM
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
5,705 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Chicago / San Francisco
     
Aug 21, 2004 11:18 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JX
Senior Member
508 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 21, 2004 11:25 |  #14

There is a difference...

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


JX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rraman
Senior Member
Avatar
786 posts
Joined Oct 2003
Location: New York
     
Aug 21, 2004 11:36 |  #15

slejhamer wrote:
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.c​om/wideanglecompare.ht​m (external link)

...

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


Raman
5D Mark II | 40D | Canon 17-40mm f/4 L| Canon 50 mm f/1.8 | Canon 100mm macro f/2.8
www.theZenArt.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

47,789 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 17-40 vs. 18-55 review
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HBGPhotos
739 guests, 462 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.