17-40 18-55 shootout (Guess the lens)

I just finished reading a few threads suggesting that the IQ of the 17-40 was comparable to the 18-55 kit.

Could those of you who have both the 17-40 and 18-55 kit lenses show off how much better the 17-40 is over the 18-55.

If you only have one lens, post your best image from that lens.

Please do NOT label the images with the lenses they were shot from (see if we can guess which is which).

Sounds like a good idea but as I am a poor High School student I dont have a 17-40

Sorry, are we talking about the 17-40 vs the 18-55 kit? I dont have the kit lens anymore and never did have the 17-40 but I doubt if its going to be very difficult spotting the difference.

Well, on an uncropped, photoshopped, 800x600 image, you probably can't tell the difference between an L, the kit lens, and an old Kodak 3mp digicam from the 1990s. The more expensive lenses shine when you look at full size 100% crops. Also, more expensive lenses are built better, have better AF, and generally produce more accurate color.

If all you're looking for is one good image, then you can get that from most lenses under the right conditions. What the L's give you is a combination of durability, quality, quickness and accuracy. Many of these qualities are not discernible from two side-by-side downsized shots.

As for your original question, if both lenses are stopped down, mounted on a tripod, and the lighting is great, I imagine the IQ produced by them is relatively close. However, this isn't really an accurate test of the lens' ability.

Just my $0.02.

What he said IMO having owned several I don't think the L's are worth the investment for most day to day amateurs like most of us here and for use in most circumstances. There are exceptions but the L's don't make the shot most of the time.

condyk wrote in post #2302415
What he said IMO having owned several I don't think the L's are worth the investment for most day to day amateurs like most of us here and for use in most circumstances. There are exceptions but the L's don't make the shot most of the time.

why do you keep buying L lenses then? you've bought at least two this year that i can think of and haven't you bought the 17-40L more than once?

you just keep a buyin' and a bashin' ... what's that all about ?

ed rader

I have to agree, at normal vieweing you will NOT notice much difference, you have to pixel peep.

I have 2 budget L lenses - and love them both. the 70-200 f/4 is stunning in terms of sharpness, speed to focus, and handling.

The 17-40 has less of a wow factor but is a joy to use - the image quality is fine, but what gives me the most pleasure is the obvious engineering and technical superiority both these lenses bring.

I have used my kit lens on occasion since I got my 17-40 and am very happy with the image quality. Handling is another story - the 'feel' of the lens is very toy-like after using the 17-40. But I wouldn't throw the kit lens out.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406

steved110 wrote in post #2302506
I have to agree, at normal vieweing you will NOT notice much difference, you have to pixel peep.

I have 2 budget L lenses - and love them both. the 70-200 f/4 is stunning in terms of sharpness, speed to focus, and handling.

The 17-40 has less of a wow factor but is a joy to use - the image quality is fine, but what gives me the most pleasure is the obvious engineering and technical superiority both these lenses bring.

I have used my kit lens on occasion since I got my 17-40 and am very happy with the image quality. Handling is another story - the 'feel' of the lens is very toy-like after using the 17-40. But I wouldn't throw the kit lens out.

the real joy is downloading breathtaking pictures. i don't have to pixel peep to see the difference.

and as a tradesman i also appreciate using a finely crafted tool and refuse to use a plastic POC with a plastic mount .

ed rader

I uploaded some pictures yesterday and had my friend (an art student but not a photography buff) guess which photos were taken with a cheap (<=$300) lens and which ones were taken with my more expensive. He guessed about 85% correct. Take a look, post guesses, and I'll reveal the answers tomorrow or something. They appear in sets of 9, so just post which ones of the 9 you think are from the inexpensive lenses, as follows:
Set 1: x, y, z
Set 2: ....
In my case <=$300 lenses are the 18-55, 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 70-300 APO, and Sigma 50mm Macro. Unfortunately I've never owned a 17-40L; if this is considered thread jacking please ignore me.

You may be listing lenses that are <=$300, but the 85mm f/1.8 has image quality to rival most L lenses - sure the 85L does have a certain something extra in terms of colour rendition and contrast, but I doubt many people could tell which lens produced which shot unless they were side by side, and even then, it would be a close run thing.

ed rader wrote in post #2302519
the real joy is downloading breathtaking pictures. i don't have to pixel peep to see the difference.

and as a tradesman i also appreciate using a finely crafted tool and refuse to use a plastic POC with a plastic mount .

ed rader

Very few of my pictures are really 'breath taking' - my skills lag somewhat behind the equipment alas. I'm still learning, and hope to get to the point where I have a portfolio rather than a large 'My Pictures' folder.....

I find that the improved colour rendition is obvious even when casually viewing photos taken with my kit verses 24 105L. I also believe the photos appear sharper and have greater detail when viewed at 100%.

Gerhard

agatep wrote in post #2301908
I just finished reading a few threads suggesting that the IQ of the 17-40 was comparable to the 18-55 kit.


Could those of you who have both the 17-40 and 18-55 lenses show off how much better the 17-40 is over the 18-55.

Please do NOT label the images with the lenses they were shot from (see if we can guess which is which) and try to keep the conditions as controlled as possible.

In fact the 17-40 is only a little sharper in the centre than the kit lens, but in the corners the kit lens gets its butt kicked. I keep saying the little kit lens is good for what it is. Of course the kit lens has rather more CA and flare sensitivity.

The kit lens can't keep up although as one zooms up although 17mm is probably the best point for the 17-40mm.

I would think the wide open corner differences are visible in a A4 print but probably not smaller, certainly not in a downsampled web image. So its more a matter of how big you print.

So choosing f8 to maximise the kit lens advantage center and corner:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

ed rader wrote in post #2302505
why do you keep buying L lenses then? you've bought at least two this year that i can think of and haven't you bought the 17-40L more than once? you just keep a buyin' and a bashin' ... what's that all about ?

Bashing is your interpretation what I say. I am saying for most the value isn't there, because the larger variable in a good shot is the shooter and their imagination. Sure, superb IQ and imagination and craft is the ultimate, but one needs to decide if the significant extra for a tad of IQ is worth it. For some it is, for some others it probably isn't. I can go through all my keepers of the last 6-9 months and not see any consistent difference that matters to me that I could put down to lens.

I can afford to buy L's, and I suppose one hopes that some of the 'over the top' praise may be true for specific models where I may have a gap, so if I see a bargain I will go for it as I know I can sell on and lose little if anything given I have already bought SH. So, no harm done.

I would keep one if I found one that offered enough difference over cheaper stuff. I liked them all but when I can get a 17-70mm and 30mm 1.4 Sigma for the price of my 17-40mm L (only had the one) then it's a no brainer. Greater flexibility and no real IQ difference I can see, even in the RAW shots. Why isn't that a good idea?

I have pretty high standards but at the end of the day I'm interested in good enough and not the most expensive. There is no right answer to 'what's best' and each buyer needs to judge that and value/what's affordable on their own terms. I'm a fit for purpose guy so the criteria you may use don't apply. That is cool. Just because I don't agree with your choice doesn't mean I am bashing you.