17-40L or 17-55IS Which one has better IQ?

I have a 40D & 30D. I will use one of these two lenses for landscapes, general walk around, and for larger group portraits when I need wider than the 24-70.

I have used my 24-70L exclusively for portraits & love the sharpness, color, & contrast. I can't seem to get that same "wow" or "pop" from my 17-55. Will the 17-40L give me the same IQ as my 24-70? I am very picky about sharpness. I would rather get it as sharp in camera and with little PP.

I have looked at the archives for both lenses. It seems to me that the 17-40L has the edge, or is it all PP making the difference?

Thank you, Kath

I can't fault my 17-55, and I did own a 17-40 for a while.

For me the 17-55 wins because it's f/2.8. What apertures are you shooting at? I would imagine around f/8 you would see very little difference, but I've never done a head-to-head comparison.

Landscapes of course would be around f/8. For group shots I will be using flash indoors. My main concern is sharpness & color/contrast.
Thanks, Kath

I often use my 17-55 at f/2.8 and have been nothing but pleased with its sharpness and rendition. Corner sharpness might be a little better with the 17-40 since it's a full-frame optic and you're shooting crop. Colour balance might be a little different, but my lenses are all a little different in that regard. Good PP workflow deals with that ...

Hopefully someone with sample shots can help you out ...

I have never used the 24-70, but have used the 17-55 and 17-40. I think the 17-55 is the sharper lens, but the 17-40 has better color and contrast. This is especially noticeable in landscape shots.

Even so, I'm thrilled with my 17-55 and would not trade it for a 17-40 as a general use lens. I have no complaints with color or contrast on mine.

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

I am the opposite. I used a 17-55 for a bit and was less than thrilled with the results. I thought the 17-40L delivered MUCH better colors and contrast. Plus, it's great on my EOS3 as well. But, to each his own, and I'll just be satisfied with what I have for the time being.

madhatter04
Did you notice a difference in sharpness as well, or was that pretty much the same for both lenses?
Thanks, Kath

With all due respect to the knowledgeable members on this forum, few if any have done any rigourous comparitive testing of lenses under controlled conditions using standardized testing methodology.

These guys do:

http://photozone.de …sm-is-test-report--review

http://photozone.de …usm-l-test-report--review

They also have a "bad" habit - they often test several samples of each lens - who else does this?


If you're looking for rigourous testing of camera bodies under controlled and standarized testing, go to "dpreview".

EF-S 17-55, hands down.

Thank you for the links.
kath

Reviews...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.canon-reviews.com/reviews/ca​non-ef-lenses
http://www.canonlensre​view.com/

Sample shots... Click on lens of choice...
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=141406

Glenn NK wrote in post #5596414
With all due respect to the knowledgeable members on this forum, few if any have done any rigourous comparitive testing of lenses under controlled conditions using standardized testing methodology.

These guys do:

http://photozone.de …sm-is-test-report--review

http://photozone.de …usm-l-test-report--review

They also have a "bad" habit - they often test several samples of each lens - who else does this?


If you're looking for rigourous testing of camera bodies under controlled and standarized testing, go to "dpreview".

The problem I find with this site, along with most other review sites, is that they generally show results for things like sharpness, chromatic abberation etc. but never discuss the colour and contrast. Yes, they provide sample shots but my own experience tells me that, in order to compare colour/contrast, you need to take exactly the same shot under exactly the same lighting. It would also be useful if they discussed things like focussing speed and accuracy, and how the focussing performs in poor lighting.

gcogger wrote in post #5597440
The problem I find with this site, along with most other review sites, is that they generally show results for things like sharpness, chromatic abberation etc. but never discuss the colour and contrast. Yes, they provide sample shots but my own experience tells me that, in order to compare colour/contrast, you need to take exactly the same shot under exactly the same lighting. It would also be useful if they discussed things like focussing speed and accuracy, and how the focussing performs in poor lighting.

Agree 100%.

I have both and they are very sharp. The 17-55IS produces better handheld shots for me. On a tripod tho, mine are equally sharp. Contrast from shot to shot can vary so much depending on the lighting and angle of shot to sun etc. I just try to shoot like 90 degrees or more away from a setting, rising sun.

I have a 17-40 for sale next week sometime. I just like the IS on the EF-S lens and contstant 2.8.

Chuck

This may or may not help, but my 17-55 is my workhorse lens as a professional photographer, and I'm constantly impressed by the definition and colour it gives me. But all of my RAW images are processed to bring out a pretty consistent level of contrast and saturation, primarily by managing the blacks in Lightroom.

I'm no less impressed by my 17-55 than I was by my 17-40 when I had it. Nor my 24-70, for that matter.

I've used both lenses in questions and a few others as well, here's my two cents:

The 17-40, which I've owned and used for three + years, has awesome contrast and saturation straight out of camera. My copy is very sharp - it truly is a great landscape lens but it is not ideal as walkaround / general purpose. 40mm is a bit short and F/4 is limiting. That being said, if you're looking to shoot mostly stopped down you can't beat the value of this lens and the quality of the images it produces straight out of camera.

I had the tamron 17-50 F/2.8 at the same time as the 17-40 as I had a need for F/2.8 - this lens produces extremely saturated images however the color is a bit different (warmer) than what comes out of Canon (cooler). I found myself backing off the saturation on this one, upping the contrast, and cooling the WB a tad. This is a very sharp lens but the AF accuracy in low light leaves a bit to be desired. Images needed very little sharpening when it got the focus right.

I also briefly had the 17-55 F/2.8 IS, hands down this is the most versatile lens of the bunch. The sharpness on this lens was good, all the way to wide open. I would say the sharpness was on par with the tamron 17-50 (which was very good) with a higher keeper rate due to superior focusing. While the images were not as saturated and contrasty as the 17-40, this is an easy fix in post processing. I'm mainly concerned with sharpness. Images from this lens seemed quite cool.

24-70 F/2.8 L - I am currently using this lens along with the 17-40. If you are looking for saturation, contrast, and sharpness this lens has it all. It truly has the best out of camera color/contrast of any lens I've used, none of this really needs to be added in post. Reds really pop out of this lens. I see you are currently using the 17-55 / 24-70 combination - to note I find switching between the 17-40 / 24-70 to be bothersome, and I'm looking at switching to one lens to cover most of the range these two do.

While I love my 17-40 and it will be staying in my stable I am looking at picking up another 17-55 F/2.8 IS for the sheer versatility and IQ it has. I hope this helps you out some. Good luck!