Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions
ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
i agree....nt

notex
--

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- hide signature --

Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,970
Re: vignetting

Color and sharpness. It's not IS lenses per se, just Canon lenses for my Canon camera only. If you look in my profile, I have the 70-200/2.8 L non IS. If I owned a Nikon I'd be saying Nikon lenses for my Nikon camera only. Burnt once by Tamron. Never again will I purchase off brand lenses for my camera.

ed rader wrote:

brianric wrote:

IMO, IS is over rated. I have three lenses with IS and I never use
it.

why do you keep paying the premium for lenses with IS if you don't
use the feature?

perhaps because canon has a monoply on these lenses :)?

ed rader

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony a6400 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony a9 II +6 more
brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,970
Re: no, not FF.........

Still wouldn't buy it. Need a weather sealed camera to take advantage of a weather sealed lens.

ed rader wrote:

same lens but L build, weather sealed, red stripe, coated optics,
soft pouch and hood.

ed rader

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony a6400 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony a9 II +6 more
ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: no, not FF.........

good point. i guess there would be no point or canon would have to call it something else for EF-S because a sealed lens would still be better than a dust pump :).

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
OP Tomm Regular Member • Posts: 285
sample photos here

I just posted some of the test photos I took here:

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1572246

They're resized and slightly sharpened, which shouldn't be an issue for these samples. The first few show the various flare problems I saw. Then I have a series what show the upper corner and edge light falloff at various apertures, plus equivalent 17-40 shots for comparison. I also included shots that show the closest focus (macro magnification) and bokeh. The captions contain more detail on the exposure and what to look for. I'm not claiming these are super-scientific, but perhaps these will help illustrate why I'm concerned about the flare and falloff. To be fair, when the 17-55 is hitting on all cylinders, it's a pretty incredible lens, so I included photo #4 to show why I may still end up buying it.

Enjoy!

  • Tomm

ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: vignetting

brianric wrote:

Color and sharpness. It's not IS lenses per se, just Canon lenses
for my Canon camera only. If you look in my profile, I have the
70-200/2.8 L non IS. If I owned a Nikon I'd be saying Nikon lenses
for my Nikon camera only. Burnt once by Tamron. Never again will I
purchase off brand lenses for my camera.

what don't you like about IS? i like the feature but i wonder if IS is the reason that the 24-105 had harsh bokeh?

also, if the 17-55 were FF and i were using it for FF i'd rather have the option of not having to pay for IS in such a short zoom.

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could
identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
Don_D
Don_D Forum Pro • Posts: 20,869
lining up...

Tomm wrote:

Canon 17-55 L IS USM with L-quality build, hood, full frame
compatibility, and red paint, for $1600? Oh man, I am so in, I'd
FedEx my credit card to Canon to place the pre-order right now.
And admit it, most of the current 17-55 EFS owners would be lining
up, too.

Don't be so sure...as for myself:
Not particularily interested in L-quality build...I think this is overrated.

FF compatibility...don't know when and if I'll move, so not interested in paying for something now that I may or may not use in the future (when there are likely to be more choices anyway).
Red paint...not a dime.

....and to be FF compatible this lens would have to be bigger and heavier, losing the EF-S design advantages.
No thanks, I'll keep the extra $370 and my EF-S 17-55.
--
-Don

 Don_D's gear list:Don_D's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +3 more
brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,970
Re: sample photos here

Are you using a hood on the 17-55/2.8 IS?

Tomm wrote:

I just posted some of the test photos I took here:

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1572246

They're resized and slightly sharpened, which shouldn't be an issue
for these samples. The first few show the various flare problems I
saw. Then I have a series what show the upper corner and edge
light falloff at various apertures, plus equivalent 17-40 shots for
comparison. I also included shots that show the closest focus
(macro magnification) and bokeh. The captions contain more detail
on the exposure and what to look for. I'm not claiming these are
super-scientific, but perhaps these will help illustrate why I'm
concerned about the flare and falloff. To be fair, when the 17-55
is hitting on all cylinders, it's a pretty incredible lens, so I
included photo #4 to show why I may still end up buying it.

Enjoy!

  • Tomm

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sony a6400 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Sony a9 II +6 more
OP Tomm Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: sample photos here

No hood--they didn't have it for rent, and I'm not committed to buying yet. I'm assuming that the hood would help w/ some of the incidental sun flare issues, but it probably wouldn't do much for shooting at night with street lamps. In contrast, I can have street lamps in my photos w/ the 17-40, and they just have pleasant glows around them.

  • Tomm

brianric wrote:
Are you using a hood on the 17-55/2.8 IS?

Tomm wrote:

I just posted some of the test photos I took here:

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1572246

They're resized and slightly sharpened, which shouldn't be an issue
for these samples. The first few show the various flare problems I
saw. Then I have a series what show the upper corner and edge
light falloff at various apertures, plus equivalent 17-40 shots for
comparison. I also included shots that show the closest focus
(macro magnification) and bokeh. The captions contain more detail
on the exposure and what to look for. I'm not claiming these are
super-scientific, but perhaps these will help illustrate why I'm
concerned about the flare and falloff. To be fair, when the 17-55
is hitting on all cylinders, it's a pretty incredible lens, so I
included photo #4 to show why I may still end up buying it.

Enjoy!

  • Tomm

ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: lining up...

i agree on all but the L lens build. i much prefer the better build and i think it pays off in the long run.

whether its worth the extra money is debatable...but it is worth it to me.

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
Don_D
Don_D Forum Pro • Posts: 20,869
Re: L lens build

ed rader wrote:

i agree on all but the L lens build. i much prefer the better build
and i think it pays off in the long run.

whether its worth the extra money is debatable...but it is worth it
to me.

Ed,

I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now and I don't recall seeing many "mechanical lens failure" threads. Have you had some bad experiences with non-L lenses in this regard?...or is it a comfort level for just having a more robust lens for bad weather, etc? Do you have evidence that non-L lenses are more likely to go out of calibration?
I can be convinced....LOL..

Don

 Don_D's gear list:Don_D's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +3 more
GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
Thanks for the test

it is very valuable for me. I would love this lens, but the light fall-off even at f/5.6 and f/8 is a problem for panorama shooting. Still, it is very appealing.

ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: L lens build

Don_D wrote:

ed rader wrote:

i agree on all but the L lens build. i much prefer the better build
and i think it pays off in the long run.

whether its worth the extra money is debatable...but it is worth it
to me.

Ed,
I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now and I don't
recall seeing many "mechanical lens failure" threads. Have you had
some bad experiences with non-L lenses in this regard?...or is it a
comfort level for just having a more robust lens for bad weather,
etc? Do you have evidence that non-L lenses are more likely to go
out of calibration?
I can be convinced....LOL..

Don

e.g. flimsy build of the 70-300 non-DO...soft pics in portrait orientation. well-documented.

also expect lens creep after a year or so of use with the 17-55, which is pretty common with canon consumer lenses.

the 17-55 doesn't have a bad build, probably a bit less robust than your average sigma and on par with tamron lenses like, say, the 28-75.

i'd say the IQ is the 17-55's strong point and build is one of the weaker points. probably the thin i like the least about the 17-55, tho, is the flare issue which sounds like it could have been easily corrected.

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
Don_D
Don_D Forum Pro • Posts: 20,869
Flare issue easily corrected?

ed rader wrote:

i'd say the IQ is the 17-55's strong point and build is one of the
weaker points. probably the thin i like the least about the 17-55,
tho, is the flare issue which sounds like it could have been easily
corrected.

I'm not so sure that the flare issue could have been "easily corrected".
From Canon's press release of the 17-55 lens:

"Harmful reflections eliminated

By optimising Super Spectra lens coatings and lens element shaping, Canon’s engineers have been effective in suppressing flare and ghosting – more prone to occur with digital cameras due to reflection off the image sensor. By increasing light absorption, coatings reduce reflections off lens element surfaces to deliver crisp, undistorted images with natural colour balance".

I looked up the 24-105 EF L press release and it says exactly the same. So Canon is using the "Super Spectra lens coatings" on both the EF-S 17-55 and the 24-105 EF L lenses.

Isn't it more likely that the large number of lens groups in the 17-55 just made the problem more acute and more difficult to fix?

-Don

 Don_D's gear list:Don_D's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +3 more
ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

yes. it's possible.

enjoy your lens :).

ed rader

-- hide signature --

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
Darin Genereux Regular Member • Posts: 272
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

That's my guess also. The 17-40L is noted to have superior flare resistance, and I'm sure it's because there's relfective surfaces to bounce light from. It has the least number of groups among the Canon wide angle zooms. The expensive UD elements are used to prevent fringing effects but do little to resist flare. Without somehow reducing the number of elements/groups I don't think there's much more to be done.

Don_D wrote:

Isn't it more likely that the large number of lens groups in the
17-55 just made the problem more acute and more difficult to fix?

-Don

ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 9,006
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

my 24-105 doesn't have a problem with flare. i wonder what the difference is?

ed rader
--

'One often has mixed feelings about relatives, but few people could identify serious problems in their relationships with dogs.'

-- hide signature --

Anonymous

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye +3 more
Homl Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Is it not sensor blooming from over exposure rather than CA?

My 200f2.8L, a lens with extremely low CA, also display similar characteristic on overexposed high contrast edges.

 Homl's gear list:Homl's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 90D
Don_D
Don_D Forum Pro • Posts: 20,869
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

ed rader wrote:

my 24-105 doesn't have a problem with flare. i wonder what the
difference is?

I looked a little further:
The 17-55 has 19 elements, 12 groups
The 24-105 has 18 elements, 13 groups
So it's not just the number of groups, since the 24-105 is more complex.

I understand wide angle aggravates the problem...but then there's the 10-22 which is noted for being flare resistant.

Maybe it's another unpainted surface/ screw like the 24-105 had, or simply a function of the design.
I'm only guessing, my knowledge of lens design is very limited!
-Don

http://www.pbase.com/dond

 Don_D's gear list:Don_D's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +3 more
Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: vignetting

"L quality flare control"?????

Is there some mystical proprietary technology Canon imparts in this regard to its L lenses? Where are you dreaming these things up?

You've never shot with a 16-35, 14 L, or 24 L wide open, have you?

Canon being first to market = being branded a monopoly...
Comparing f/2.8 light fall off to f/4 = apples to apples...

Your standards are your own my man. All I can tell is that they seem to have very little to do with the real world...

Tomm wrote:
Oh, and L-quality flare control, too. I was just looking over my
shots from last night again, and some of the night shots w/
streetlamps had these large washed-out halos. Flare is annoying.

  • Tomm

Tomm wrote:
Canon 17-55 L IS USM with L-quality build, hood, full frame
compatibility, and red paint, for $1600? Oh man, I am so in, I'd
FedEx my credit card to Canon to place the pre-order right now.
And admit it, most of the current 17-55 EFS owners would be lining
up, too.

  • Tomm

brianric wrote:
Touché!

ed rader wrote:

tom - would you like it better if the 17-55 were an L lens with
hood and cost, say, $1600?

ed rader

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads