Is my new 30d ok?

I`ve just got a new 30d along with 17-55mm f2.8 and took some test shots. This camera definitely gives better results than my digital rebel, but still I can`t make sure if it`s a real good copy with my untrained eyes, so can you please tell what you think of the test shots? I`m not asking for a lens evaluation, cause the lens is going back not because its a bad lens but because its build quality is inferior even to my 70-300mm efs.

This is taken with a digital rebel with 18-55mm kit lens on tripod. default settings manual mode.

f5.6 1/250 iso 200

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

30d 17-55mm f2.8 on tripod. default settings manual mode

f5.6 1/250 iso200

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

here are the 100% crops one under the other. (the first one is taken with the digital rebel)

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

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

this is an auto focus test shot

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

I think the picture on the right is much better, look at the fine detail and the word canon. It's hazy on the left and crisper on the right...by a good bit.

connexile wrote in post #4128012
here are the 100% crops one under the other. (the first one is taken with the digital rebel)

Youre going to return the 17-55 f/2.8? Im a little confused.

Aside from that, the second pictures are much better than the first ones IMO

AdamLewis wrote in post #4128329
Youre going to return the 17-55 f/2.8? Im a little confused.

yes, I`m planning to replace it with a 17-40mm L and 50mm f1.4. The 30d is a nice sturdy body and using it with a piece of plastic just doesn`t feel good.

btw yeah, the second pic is taken with the 30d, and it looks sharper defintely, also i think there is less noise with the 30d.

I AM NOT A FAN OF THE 17-40L ON 1.6X FORMATS

Although it is a nice wide angle lens for a full frame camera, the 17-40L is neither long enough nor short enough to satisfy my needs on a 1.6x format camera.

The approximate 64mm equivalent range is really far too short and the approximate 28mm end is really not really wide enough! The f/4 is a pretty slow aperture and the IQ of my 17-40L is very good but, not really great (even after being tweaked by Canon Service Center).

The short ends between the 17-40L and the 17-55mm IS lenses are the same but, the equivalent 88mm of the IS lens is a much more workable focal length. The constant f/2.8 aperture combined with the great IS makes the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens a lot more versatile. The image quality should be at least equal and probably better from the IS lens.

Did I select the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens? No, I did not!

When the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens was introduced, I was able to snare a minty 24-70mm f/2.8L lens from a professional photographer who was changing to the new IS lens. At that time there were many photographers wanting to get on the band wagon with the new IS lens and therefore the prices of used 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses dropped drastically. I snared my lens for $700 plus shipping and matched it up with a 12-24mm Tokina f/4 which cost another $500. So for $1,200 (just a bit more than the price of a new 17-55mm f/2.8L IS lens and less than the price of a new 24-70mm f/2.8L lens) I have a focal length range from 12mm to 70mm or roughly 19mm to 112mm equivalent with great imagery throughout.

Ill never understand why people take the 17-40 or 16-35 over the 17-55 on a crop body. Its sharper, faster, and has IS. Only time I could see someone taking one of the L lenses over the EF-s on a crop body is if they were always going to be shooting in harsh environments and just had to have the better sealing. I have the 17-55 for my 40D and love and I would never say it feels poorly constructed. In fact, I had someone last night come into the store who bought the 16-35 f/2.8 OVER the 17-55 f/2.8 IS even though it was more expensive. It was for a 30D and all they were going to do was take pictures of their children and maybe weddings. I just personally dont see why you would spend more money for less of a lens ( IMO )

Only thing I wish is that they made something like it that would work on a MkIII. Until then, Ill stick with the 24-105.

Just my two cents.

thanks for your replies, I see that neither of you recommend the 17-40mm over 17-55mm f2.8. Actually, I can afford a 24-70mm L, but I can`t make sure if it is wide enough for a walk-around lens on a crop factor body. I will get a 10-22mm efs anyways sometime next year. The problem is with the 24-70mm, I will have to change these two lenses ( 10-22mm and 24-70mm) so often, more than I would do with 17-40mm and 10-22mm , because 24-70mm will most of the time not be enough at the wide end, at least I think so.

connexile wrote in post #4129410
thanks for your replies, I see that neither of you recommend the 17-40mm over 17-55mm f2.8. Actually, I can afford a 24-70mm L, but I can`t make sure if it is wide enough for a walk-around lens on a crop factor body. I will get a 10-22mm efs anyways sometime next year. The problem is with the 24-70mm, I will have to change these two lenses ( 10-22mm and 24-70mm) so often, more than I would do with 17-40mm and 10-22mm , because 24-70mm will most of the time not be enough at the wide end, at least I think so.

Well nobody can tell you for sure what to get since you may shoot completely different than whomever is giving the advice, but I just that personally, on a crop body, I would never take the 16-35 or 17-40 over the 17-55. Just my two cents. Take it for what its worth hehe.


On topic though, congrats on the new body hehe

AdamLewis wrote in post #4129780
On topic though, congrats on the new body hehe

Thanks. 30d is a very pleasing upgrade from the digital rebel. Regarding the lens, It`s a shame that Canon doesn`t have a L series 17-55mm lens with a wide aperture while Nikon has a pro class 17-55mm f2.8 that fits both its crop factor and ff bodies. well, maybe I should stick with the 17-55mm efs until I upgrade to ff.

The 17-55 does not have all the serious disadvantages of the other Canon brand possibles:

17-40 - Not long enough and one stop slower, plus no IS.
24-70 - No IS, not wide enough.
24-105 - One stop slower, not wide enough.

Personally I don't have much problem with the build quality of the 17-55, but that is because it has the build features I think are important.

These are:
Ring USM
Full time manual focus
Two touch focus / zoom
Non-rotating front element
Internal focus.

What it lacks are
Internal zoom (same as many "L")
Weather seal (same as many "L")
Well damped focus ring....worse than even the mediocre rings on most "L"

Beyond that nothing about the build matters IMO. It's not feel...it's function. I noticed you earlier thought your 70-300 had better build....and that I do not understand. The 70-300 lacks ring USM, FTM, internal focus, non-rotating front element...all things the 17-55 has.