Reading mode: Light Dark

17-40L vs 70-200L f2.8 IS

Go to last post
W

Wes69632

Senior Member
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
Hello:

I'm sure that you are intrigued by the odd lens comparison, but I have a question for those of you who have both lenses. I shoot mostly jpg, and my 70-200L f2.8 IS captures much better images - crisper, much more punch than my 17-40L. My 17-40L is not as sharp and images are drab - lacking "punch". I know that editing can go a long way to boost sharpness and contrast and I know some of you will insist I shoot raw. But I consistantly notice that unprocessed shots right out of the camera are significantly better with my 70-200 than with my 17-40. And if I edit both, the 7-200 shots are the wowers. Now here's the question - Is my 17-40 not performing well? What's your experience for those who own both lens?
Regards
...Wes
 
I have both lenses and the L wow factor is similar. The 70-200 being F2.8 and longer, has better bokeh. Sharpness, colour and contrast are comparable.
--

 
That's not the same result that I am having. My 17-40L lacks the wow.
Regards
...Wes
 
Wes said:
That's not the same result that I am having. My 17-40L lacks the wow.
Regards
...Wes
Click to expand...
I don't think the 17-40L can really quite match the 70-200, especially both wide open. the 70-200 is about a good a zoom as has ever been made, while the ultra-wides are generically tougher to design. so I wouldn't be too worried if your 17-40 doesn't quite seem to match the 70-200 (although it should not be terrible by any means and the color on mine is very rich stopped down).
 
bronxbombers said:
I don't think the 17-40L can really quite match the 70-200,
especially both wide open. the 70-200 is about a good a zoom as has
ever been made, while the ultra-wides are generically tougher to
design. so I wouldn't be too worried if your 17-40 doesn't quite
seem to match the 70-200 (although it should not be terrible by any
means and the color on mine is very rich stopped down).
Click to expand...
My 17-40L is not bad by any means, it just doesn't compare to the 70-200 for wow. When you stop down, how low do you go?
Regards
...Wes
 
bronxbombers said:
Wes said:
That's not the same result that I am having. My 17-40L lacks the wow.
Regards
...Wes
Click to expand...
I don't think the 17-40L can really quite match the 70-200,
especially both wide open. the 70-200 is about a good a zoom as has
ever been made, while the ultra-wides are generically tougher to
design. so I wouldn't be too worried if your 17-40 doesn't quite
seem to match the 70-200 (although it should not be terrible by any
means and the color on mine is very rich stopped down).
Click to expand...
I've mostly used it around f/9-10, or at least f/6.3, since I have mostly been using it as a specialized scenics and landscape type lens and not as a general walk around or anything else.
 
Lee:

I see the color is similar, but it hard to give either "punch credits". That said, your airplane photo definitely has punch. I'm going to try some aperature bracketing and see if there is a difference. Thanls.
...Wes
ljfinger said:
I actually did a comparison of mine, both at f4:



These are 100% crops, 40mm on the 17-40L, 70mm on the 70-200, I
changed subject distance to keep size constant.

There is a difference but you'd expect that comparing a retrofocus
ultra-wide to a non-retorfocus longer lens.

That said, how's the punch on this out-of-camera 17-40L shot at f11?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/events/eaaairshow2005/aircraftportraitsfullsize/20D_6097.JPG

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
 
Wes,

I have the 70-200 F4 and just purchased the 17-40 two weeks ago. I found the 17-40 images to be just OK, no wow factor like the 70-200F4. I decided to tripod test the lens against other wides I have, the kit lens and the 24mm Canon 2.8.

The 17-40 did quite well against the kit lens at the center and left side but the kit lens was better at the rigth corners! The 24mm was the best of the three by a mile, maybe two miles, at the center and corners.

I just shipped the 17-40mm back to BH this morning. At $600 it was not better than the kit lens. I have seen very good copies of the 17-40, the one I got was not good enough. I may try another copy from BH. If I do I will test that against my 10-22mm canon lens as well. My copy of that lens is much better than just OK, not sure if wow applies.

Hope that helps.

Eduardo
Wes said:
Hello:
I'm sure that you are intrigued by the odd lens comparison, but I
have a question for those of you who have both lenses. I shoot
mostly jpg, and my 70-200L f2.8 IS captures much better images -
crisper, much more punch than my 17-40L. My 17-40L is not as
sharp and images are drab - lacking "punch". I know that editing
can go a long way to boost sharpness and contrast and I know some
of you will insist I shoot raw. But I consistantly notice that
unprocessed shots right out of the camera are significantly better
with my 70-200 than with my 17-40. And if I edit both, the 7-200
shots are the wowers. Now here's the question - Is my 17-40 not
performing well? What's your experience for those who own both
lens?
Regards
...Wes
Click to expand...
 
Wes,

Which camera are you using? The 17-40L is a very good lens but has disappointingly soft corners on a full frame camera like the 5D. On a 1.6x crop camera it should be fine. I use mine on a 350D/ Rebel XT and it's generally great, though with a slight softness in the top left hand corner. Apart from that it's pin sharp with wonderful deep colours and great contrast. Miles ahead of the poor kit lens. There's a very good review here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

which mentions the softness on FF cameras.

Sounds like you've got a duff one, though I've never used your 70-200 lens, so can't compare.

Michael
 
It all really depnds on what you are comparing...

Are you comparing the 17-40 at 17mm f4.0, and the 70 - 200 at 70 & f2.8??

Both wide open I would have to believe the 70-200 would win in nearly all focal ranges.
bronxbombers said:
Wes said:
That's not the same result that I am having. My 17-40L lacks the wow.
Regards
...Wes
Click to expand...
I don't think the 17-40L can really quite match the 70-200,
especially both wide open. the 70-200 is about a good a zoom as has
ever been made, while the ultra-wides are generically tougher to
design. so I wouldn't be too worried if your 17-40 doesn't quite
seem to match the 70-200 (although it should not be terrible by any
means and the color on mine is very rich stopped down).
Click to expand...
 
@27mm f/16

 
I have both the 17-40 and 70-200 IS. Love the combination (plus my 50 F1.4). Both have the definitive vow factor. The 17-40 is not quite as sharp as the 70-200, but still sharp. Color rendition and contrast on both lenses are superb.
 
Difficult to say from this image but the left side appears to be sharper and have better contrast. Maybe it is the time of the day?

The copy I tested was not consistent in all corners so I am somewhat biased I should say.

Eduardo
maxwebster said:
@27mm f/16

Click to expand...
 
Michael

I am using a 20d, 1.6x crop. On the 17-40, I notice that the whole image is somewhat soft, but it sharpens up nicely. It just doesn't have that punch factor that my 70-200 has.
Regards
...Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top