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

Yes contrast is very manageable in PP.
Linarms, how do you like your Lightroom software?

Chuck

freebird wrote in post #5597607
Yes contrast is very manageable in PP.
Linarms, how do you like your Lightroom software?

Chuck

I'm not Linarms, but I am a working photographer who uses Lightroom. I can honestly say that LR changed my entire workflow and really is a valuable tool - it is a file management system, great for organizing, culling, batch processing (color correcting, contrast, saturation), and then fine tuning the processing of individual images. You can instantly create "virtual copies" of files and display several edited images side by side to see what you like best. If I get things right in camera I very rarely even need to go into photoshop anymore. I highly recommend checking out LR!

Thank you for you reply. CS2 is what I'm using now, but heard lots of good things about Lightroom. Is Vista a issue at all?

Chuck

No, I run XP on my desktop and Vista on my laptop and it works fine on both. There is a new version of LR available as a beta/testing download, you could try it out for free that way.

I think my 17-55 was marinally sharper, while my 17-40 had slightly better color and contrast. AF is very similiar and of course the 17-40 has better build. I sold the 17-40 when I got the 17-55, sold it when I got a 1d2. If you are going to stick with cropped sensors, I'd get the 17-55, just for the extra 15mm, 2.8 and IS. If you have any thoughts on going FF (or 1.3), get the 17-40, I may look to get another one soon.

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.

"My A560 give much better sharpness and saturation and contrast than my 40D does!" Apples and oranges subjective opinion. Anyone else from Missouri, who wants someone to 'show me' same shot taken with both lenses on the same body, in rapid sequence?

How about running the comparison on a tripod and posting two JPEGs, freebird, since you still own both?

I'm loving Lightroom. Only just made the switch from Bridge + ACR. It really is a much smarter tool in every possible way.

I sold my 17-40 after I got my 17-55. The 17-55 offers more flexibility and I found that my results were consistantly better with that lens.

Sounds good Wilt. I will test on a 30D soon. May take some time, several days, but check back. Will try to find a good subject and see how it goes, it should be interesting.

What F stop do you wanna see, F4, F8?

Chuck

freebird wrote in post #5597786
Sounds good Wilt. I will test on a 30D soon. May take some time, several days, but check back. Will try to find a good subject and see how it goes, it should be interesting.

What F stop do you wanna see, F4, F8?

Chuck

Thanks for volunteering to do this comparison, Chuck! I am tired of hearing about 'L' having 'color and saturation' advantage without substantiation of the claim. To settle the arguments it might be good to see images at/near wide open (f/4) and also at/near performance peak f/stop (f/8)

Unaltered JPEGs would avoid a variable of using RAW conversion that is not identical.

Thanks for all the replies. I will be looking forward to the comparison test shots.

Dorman, it seems we have the same dillema. Thanks for your input.

I have had the tamron and while it was a sharp copy, it was not all that accurate at focussing & I wanted more from it. I upgraded to the 17-55 & it is fast, has good IQ, but again, wanted more I have not tried the 17-40 as of yet.

I have an extremely sharp copy of the 24-70 & was hoping that there was a lens out there that would compare to it in all ways, only wider. I have been spoiled!!

I have even thought about adding the Tokina 12-24 to my lineup. Then shooting Weddings & events with the 12-24, 24-70, & 70-200. But with 2 bodies, I would rather put on a WA - Mid on one and a Tele on the other.

So.....the 17-55 is really the ONLY choioce when considering all that it has, including, but not leastly..... versatility.

So if anyone can suggest any other way to go, or if someone can show me that the 17-40 is a better lens.....if not I will stick with the 17-55.

Thanks so much, Kath

The only other lens to really consider would be the 16-35 F/2.8 L MKII, expensive and short but it will give you the 17-40 color/contrast in an F/2.8 package.

linarms wrote in post #5596080
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'd say f4 and below the 17-55 will be noticeably sharper but the 17-40L has superior color and contrast.

if you are shooting f5.6 and above sharpness isn't an issue, imo.

ed rader

Basically, for the things I plan on shooting, 2.8 really is a must. As much as I would like the 16-35, I'm not ready to spend that much.

By keeping the 17-55, it will pretty much stay on one body, while the 70-200 & 85 1.8 (or another), will occupy the otherbody. As I plan on selling my 24-105 soon, the 17-55 will be a nice walk around lens as well.

Thanks, Kath

I've compared my 17-55 to my 35L (don't have a 17-40), same shot, minutes apart, and the 35L does have slightly better color and contrast. That said, the 17-55 is very sharp wide open and is one of the fastest focusing lenses that I've ever used.

Here is a comparison of the 17-55 and 35L (both shots on the 30D). Of course it isn't quite fair, since the 35L is stopped down 2 stops, not to mention it's a prime vs. a zoom, but it is pretty hard to tell at this size. Any guesses as to which is which?

1/200 f/2.8 ISO100 - (full size - http://photos.fahrenhe​it128.com/img/v0/p1442​64674.jpg)

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

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