The 17-40L arrived today, so I decided to compare it to the kit lens, which is an important part of my evaluation, seeing how I intend for it to be the 'kit lens replacement'.
(the Sigma 18-50 was my first choice, but I got a copy that was straight up messed up so it went back. read here if interested)
Scene was some random objects lit by desk lamp (light was gone by the time I got home). Tripod, timer for all shots. Focus was center point AF on the guitar at the center of the 'tree'.
I shot both at the widest angle (17 vs 18mm) using f/4. I shot both at the longest angle (40 vs 55mm) at the widest aperture, which as you know in this case, the kit was limited to f/5.6. I also shot at f/8 at all comparison lengths.
Below is the full scene at widest angle f/4:
 | HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
Here are my observations:
-First off, the kit is wider!? This would be easier to swallow if the L didn't have a listed 1mm advantage. In this scene you can see that it contributes to one and a half extra letters on the water bottle.
-On top of that, the kit has less distortion at the edges!? Maybe I'm using the wrong technical term, but look how different the bottles look.
-At f/4, wide angle- the kit is mostly sharper. In the center area of the frame, where the subject is (the white booklet), they are mostly comparable, but the kit is still sharper. There are a few select areas in the scene where the L is sharper/more detailed (the right edge of the water bottle)
-At f/8 wide angle- they are almost identical, but the L wins in sharpness/clarity by a touch in the center (booklet). And is dramatically sharper in some of the other areas (frame of the monitor). The edges clean up a lot from f/4 too, but it's still not great. The kit lens has more defined detail at the edges still.
-At the telephoto (40mm vs. 55mm), the L decidedly stomps all over the kit, regardless of the 2 apertures I was using in the 'test'. Perhaps some leniency can be given to the poor old kit as it was shooting 15mm longer. I didn't even bother posting pics/crops here, as it's not really useful for comparison. The L is better, that's that.
-The much touted 'contrast' of the L is present. The booklet is definitely brighter in the L scene. But, I don't think the kit looks all that bad in comparison, and even looks 'contrasty-er' at the micro level in the crops. Go figure.
-As for the other much touted component: 'color'. Most of the scene looks the same. Don't get me wrong, the L is better, especially if you pixel peep, but again, I'm more surprised at how the kit 'holds up'. Look at the red CD case, or the purple cloth for example- the L isn't 'poppier' here. Maybe this advantage will show itself in much greater clarity in another situation?
-Chromatic abberation or fringing? Not a contest here, the L is superior in this area.
Conclusion so far:
Keep in mind that I'm more interested in the wide angle of this range. I feel like if I really wanted nice sharpness at the 40mm-range, I'd just as soon pop on the nifty fifty. So the fact that the 'superiority' of the L at the wide end is more ambiguous is disheartening. The fact that it's oddly less wide, is definitely a negative. The edges just aren't very good, which doesn't surprise me as it conforms to the sentiments I have read. But still I didn't expect the edges to be more 'distorted'.
I would want a top grade "L for Luxury" lens with USM, built like a tank, with a huge (comparatively) piece of glass to have a more definite edge to the "L for Lowly" lens, that is near universally reviled, tiny glassed, feels like a toy, plasticky kit lens. One is $650 (that's rebate price, mind you!) and the other is essentally $0 (out of my pocket)
Tell me my expectations are out of line? Tell me this is a 'bad copy' of the L (I personally doubt it).
Perhaps I have an exceptional kit lens and a dud 17-40, but something tells me that's not the case.
I intend to compare more in the day time, but I'm not hugely optimistic. I wanted to love the L, so my quest for a 'kit replacement' could finally be over, but it looks like it might just go on...
