Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 04 Sep 2013 (Wednesday) 07:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40L poor performance - side-by-side comparison with 40mm STM

 
BluePotato
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 07:40 |  #1

I purchased a used 17-40 last month and was immediately disappointed with the image quality. The build quality was superb and the zoom and focus rings were perfect. It felt great on my 6D. But when I did a side-by-side comparison with my 40mm STM, I sold it last week to purchase a Tamron 24-70 VC. 24mm will be wide enough for me, especially since I'll be purchasing a Rokinon 14mm in the future for ultra-wide work.

Below are 100% crops using Lightroom. Same in-camera settings. (Sorry, Photobucket decreased the image size a bit. It's more prominent on the 100% crops, but there is still an obvious difference here)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i22.photobucket​.com …emweber/ScreenS​hot027.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i22.photobucket​.com …emweber/ScreenS​hot028.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i22.photobucket​.com …emweber/ScreenS​hot029.jpg (external link)


Is this typical image quality for the 17-40L?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bonbridge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 418
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Netherlands
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:05 |  #2

Are those the corners of the image? The 40 STM does have much better IQ wide open, but on F/8 I doubt the difference are this big. The 17-40L is really sharp in the middle so if this are crops from the middle then your 17-40L was faulty. If those are corner crops I think it is possible, but still a big difference.


5DII + 6D | 16-35/4.0L IS | Σ35/1.4A | 40/2.8 | Σ85/1.4A | 85/1.2L II | 70-200/2.8L IS II
iMac Retina 5k | i7 | 24Gb RAM | 512GB Flash | 4GB M295X

Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BluePotato
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:09 |  #3

The first image was far left side (not corner, though). #2 and #3 were closer to the middle. I used manual focus with live view zooming in before setting the focus. All were mirror lockup with tripod.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:14 |  #4

The Pancake smokes the 17-40 (but only at 40) for sure, but having said that, the last 2 crops from the 17-40 image look like there may be motion blur as the lights are elongated vertically.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Humble ­ Photographer
Member
87 posts
Joined Aug 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:15 |  #5

Zoom vs prime. Prime will usually win, no matter how cheap it is:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,132 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 451
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:18 |  #6

Humble Photographer wrote in post #16266962 (external link)
Zoom vs prime. Prime will usually win, no matter how cheap it is:)

a new prime outperforms an ancient zoom? what? stop the presses.......:rolleyes:.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Humble ­ Photographer
Member
87 posts
Joined Aug 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:47 |  #7

ed rader wrote in post #16266971 (external link)
a new prime outperforms an ancient zoom? what? stop the presses.......:rolleyes:.

Not really, my 35L with a more than a decade old design still outperforms my 6 months old 24-70 II:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:51 |  #8

Another thing is f/4 vs f/2.8. Its one full stop more sharpness if they both gain the same amount while stopping down... With the pancake you stopped down 3 stops while with the 17-40 you just stopped down 2 stops...


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tat3406
Senior Member
Avatar
275 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2013
     
Sep 04, 2013 08:52 |  #9

very difficult to compared a zoom lens and a prime.I have both lens, no one can replace each others,


6D, 100L,24-70 F4L, 40mm pancake, 70-300L
Carl Zeiss MP 50
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tat3406/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 04, 2013 09:30 |  #10

I was amazed at how sharp my 40mm was wide open. I returned it becaise the used prices had came down where I could of saved 50 bucks but now they are back up again. Will need to wait for prices to drop. I won't pay more than 125 for one used


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,202 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 1361
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 04, 2013 09:41 |  #11

Humble Photographer wrote in post #16267023 (external link)
Not really, my 35L with a more than a decade old design still outperforms my 6 months old 24-70 II:)

You know you are just reinforcing his point, right?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 04, 2013 11:30 |  #12

My 24-70 II was sharper than any of the (3) 35L's I used prior. It is also sharper than (2) 70-200 II at 70mm wide open. I think I have one of the better copies, though. Hella sharp end to end, its crazy.

Love my 24-70 II :D


To the Op,

Does the right/left look even in the 17-40L picture? I have a 17-40 that was decentered at 40mm and no matter how far I stopped it down, the left side was blurry. Returned it for another and it was perfect.

If it is even though on the right and left, then I don't think it is a decentering issue. My 17-40 is very sharp, esp at f/8 in the center. The edges still get softer at f/8 though. With very distance subjects it would be more noticeable. My 24-70 II puts the 17-40 to shame in terms of edge/corner quality. I think it is sharper at f/2.8 than my 17-40 at f/8 or f/11. Ill go get an example now of the 17-40L... BRB!

*takes pictures*

*uploads pictures*

BACK!

Here we go... In order...(40mm f/8 full image, right crop at f/8, right crop at f/4, 17mm f/8 full, 17mm f/8 crop)... Just to get an idea. The right vs. left sides of the frame are even with my copy.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i258.photobucke​t.com …0mmf8full_zpsd6​762a1a.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i258.photobucke​t.com …on/f8crop_zps25​a71d3d.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i258.photobucke​t.com …on/f4crop_zps07​d99f4a.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i258.photobucke​t.com …/17mmfull_zpscc​34d151.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i258.photobucke​t.com …ghtcrop17_zps4f​036f97.jpg (external link)


While the edges may not be stellar, they completely do the job just fine. I *love* the 17-40. The colors, contrast and the versatility of the lens. While I would like sharper edges and all that, I would not like the price I am sure :D I would easily expect a 17-40 II to be double, at least. $1399 to $1499.

-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NeonStar
Senior Member
253 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Sep 04, 2013 14:51 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

No one uses photobucket anymore..try imgur.com




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 04, 2013 16:02 |  #14

Does it matter who I used to upload those? I only use Photobucket to upload random tidbits for forums. All my normal stuff goes to Flickr. Photobucket works perfectly for what I use it for.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,202 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 1361
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 04, 2013 16:08 |  #15

Invertalon wrote in post #16268129 (external link)
Does it matter who I used to upload those? I only use Photobucket to upload random tidbits for forums. All my normal stuff goes to Flickr. Photobucket works perfectly for what I use it for.

Photobucket did have a reputation for softening images when posting to forums like this. I don't know whether thats still the case or not. If you are posting to demonstrate sharpness it might be a consideration.




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

2,107 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40L poor performance - side-by-side comparison with 40mm STM
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Panzer90
1030 guests, 314 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.