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 10 Aug 2009 (Monday) 14:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40L knocks over 17-55 in Cameralabs test (link inside)

 
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: Channelview, Tx
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:35 |  #16

I was pleased with this shot with the 17-40 on a 1D MK III.
It's just a a dried up pond with some nice clouds tooling by.

Mike
24mm, ISO 400, f/8 @ 1/1600th sec SS.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


MaxPreps Profile (external link)

My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
joosay
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: City so nice they named it twice
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:36 |  #17

I had the 17-40L and I must say that I am MUCH happier with the 17-55. MUCH. happier.


Flickr (external link) - Angelito Jusay Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joosay
Goldmember
Avatar
1,325 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: City so nice they named it twice
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:37 |  #18

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8434794 (external link)
Yeah I too am tired of the 17-55 bandwagon. I know it's a great lens, yes I've seen the great photos from it, but same can be said about the 17-40 and even the kit lens. (kit lens not so much) but still. I think people who spend $1,100 on the 17-55 are inclined to say it was way better than any other choice. Same can be said for any gear you invest money in, including my own. But I think when it comes down to it, you can take great pics with either of the 3 lenses. it all comes down to the user behind the camera. You'll pay a little bit extra (or a lot extra in the case of the 17-55 :-p ) for small benefits here and there whether its robust build quality or 2.8 aperture. Personally I like to take photos outdoors in daylight and a "fast" lens means nothing to me. Yes there are times its useful, and for that i'd use my 50 1.4.

I spent $800 on a used 17-55. $1100 seems overpriced imo.


Flickr (external link) - Angelito Jusay Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Synenergy52
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
798 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA (818)
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:47 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

Joosay-Hey, that works. =)


"Shooting the 5D is like shooting a view camera: its a pain, but the results are why you do it." - Ken Rockwell :p

My Photo Blog (external link)

5D| 17-40L | 50 1.4 | 430EX | SD780 IS P&S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Synenergy52
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
798 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA (818)
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:50 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

All true but you won't find any prime below $1,500 or even $1,000 that will outperform wide angles of the 17-40. All the wide "inexpensive" primes don't compare to the 17-40 at same focal lengths. I already did the research. That was my dilemma... trying to find a wide reasonably priced prime. They exist, but the 17-40 performs so well, its like having lots of wide primes all in one package. Plus its built like a tank. So why not!

malcolm027 wrote in post #8434820 (external link)
I'm surprised. There are so many people that recommend the 17-55. If you don't need IS, F2.8, or an extra 15mm, I think the 17-40mm f4 looks great. Plus it's cheap and well built. The 17-40 may be my next lens, except I'm starting to have a lust for primes...


"Shooting the 5D is like shooting a view camera: its a pain, but the results are why you do it." - Ken Rockwell :p

My Photo Blog (external link)

5D| 17-40L | 50 1.4 | 430EX | SD780 IS P&S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,284 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Aug 10, 2009 16:58 as a reply to  @ Synenergy52's post |  #21

Wow, I'm surprised. I owned a 17-55 f/2.8 and a 17-40L and the 17-55 was easily a step above the 17-40 (on a crop obviously)...not that the 17-40 was particularly bad. Honestly, I'd probably put the 17-55 closer in performance to the 35L than it was to the 17-40. The 17-55IS is the best Canon zoom I've used in terms of IQ (except for flare issues).

The review overall is pretty crap. They call the 17-55IS with f/2.8 and IS a specialist lens? Yeah, it's pretty special when you want to shoot indoors with ambient lighting.

edit: Actually, what may going on is that the 17-55 peaks in sharpness at a wider aperture than the other lenses. I still think there is something wrong with their 17-55 shot though. It should be sharper than that.


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,260 posts
Likes: 2300
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 10, 2009 17:00 |  #22

Hmm.. Looking over the resolution tests looks like the 17-85 significantly out performs the 17-40 and the kit lens clearly beats out the 17-55. I'm beginning to doubt any site who uses a non-live view camera and allows the camera to do the focusing.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Aug 10, 2009 17:30 as a reply to  @ gjl711's post |  #23

Count me in on the "17-55 f2.8 IS" rules camp. At least that's my general finding having used and tested many copies of many different lenses in its class. Here's one test from a while back:

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/fourpoundsho​wdown (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Aug 10, 2009 18:14 |  #24

WhyFi wrote in post #8434752 (external link)
Really? The only PP issues I (sometimes) have with the 17-40 is CA in the corners (corrected in 2 seconds) and that the colors are sometimes too saturated, 'specially with a CPL.

I need almost no PP with my 17-40L. That's why it is in my bag.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Aug 10, 2009 18:14 |  #25

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8434951 (external link)
All true but you won't find any prime below $1,500 or even $1,000 that will outperform wide angles of the 17-40. All the wide "inexpensive" primes don't compare to the 17-40 at same focal lengths. I already did the research. That was my dilemma... trying to find a wide reasonably priced prime. They exist, but the 17-40 performs so well, its like having lots of wide primes all in one package. Plus its built like a tank. So why not!

Yup. Been there, done that. The 17-40L provides outstanding color, contrast and BQ. The only place it lacks IMHO is QC out of the factory. Mine needs an adjustment of +9 and it's laser sharp. Before that, on a non-MF adjust body it misfocused badly over 30mm about 70% of the time. I think any issue people may have with it's sharpness probably has to due with poor QC. I'm shocked at how sharp it is past 30mm with a +9.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,124 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 440
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Aug 10, 2009 19:53 |  #26

WhyFi wrote in post #8434752 (external link)
Really? The only PP issues I (sometimes) have with the 17-40 is CA in the corners (corrected in 2 seconds) and that the colors are sometimes too saturated, 'specially with a CPL.

i didn't understand that comment either.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 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
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,124 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 440
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Aug 10, 2009 19:55 |  #27

WhyFi wrote in post #8434479 (external link)
That's one way to look at it... the other is that it's completely irrelevant because the 17-55 will not do FF and has a less robust build quality.

Horses for courses.

it doesn't do 1.3 crop either.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 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
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
Aug 10, 2009 21:14 |  #28

tkbslc wrote in post #8434360 (external link)
This is completely irrelevant since the 17-40 can't do f2.8, does not have IS and will not zoom to 55. If you don't need those, then, yeah, why spend the money? All the tests in that link are done at f8.

Absolutely. I owned a 17-40 for quite a while, but I wanted the bit of extra reach and really wanted the 2.8. Without those two, the 17-40 was frustratingly limited as a walkabout lens. The IS was just a nice bonus. Optically I found no difference with my copies. Both are excellent. The only downside for the 17-55 was the build quality once you are used to L lenses.

Even if I do end up going full frame at some point, I don't particularly like ultrawides, so the 17-40 would stop being of any real use.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
la ­ canon ­ amateur
Senior Member
374 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Louisiana
     
Aug 10, 2009 21:39 |  #29

ed rader wrote in post #8435893 (external link)
i didn't understand that comment either.

ed rader


I think he is just noting that the CA can be corrected in just a couple of seconds in DPP/LR or with any other PP software.

Regards Ed

Hall


My Gear Listhttps://photography-on-the.net …p?p=3032213&pos​tcount=554

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cl!ckFoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,361 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: I have Amish neighbors.
     
Aug 10, 2009 21:42 |  #30

just bought my new 17-40 a few minutes ago....for the 3rd time.


-Matt
FOR SALE!
5D|17-40L SOLD!|85f1.8|Sigmalux SOLD!|580ex SOLD!

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

5,002 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40L knocks over 17-55 in Cameralabs test (link inside)
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 le bleu
626 guests, 339 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.