Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions
Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: lining up...

Don_D wrote:

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

Me too. In fact, I'll even invest that $370 toward a 30D to carry alongside my 5D which gives me anothe backup body, a different FOV characteristic option with each lens I own, save the $300 toward a TC, and wind up with the 30D costing about $600 out-of-pocket.

Wow, the 17-55 is getting better and better all the time.

Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

Except for the fact that the wider aperture ends up letting in a relatively greater amount of light from a broader set of angles, not to mention the difference between 17 and 24 in this regard.

Don_D wrote:

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

brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,971
Re: vignetting

I'm an event photographer. Most of my event photography involves flash, whether as fill flash or the main light. I have a tendency to fire off two or three shots in low-speed continuous mode. For that type of photography IS is useless. Other times, without flash, my shutter speed is high enough that I don't need IS. For the times that I find myself with low shutter speed I use my tripod. Given a choice, I'll buy a Canon lens without IS than with IS, as I did with my 70-200/2.8 L.

ed rader wrote:

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

 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
dr_mat Regular Member • Posts: 223
Re: Flare issue easily corrected?

I think the difference is obvious when you look at the two lenses side by side. The 17-40L, 24-105L simply don't bounce a lot of light around inside the glass. The 17-55 looks more like the bottom of a clear glass bottle, it bounces a stack of light around.

Check the visuals:

Don_D wrote:

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

-- hide signature --

Why is the universe filled with shiny things I want to buy?

Homl Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
To be fair, the angle of the photos to the lenses should be the same.

Here are the photos of a lens with one of the lowest CA.
Glass bottle like? Maybe at certain angles.

Photos taken with a 17-55f2.8IS.

 Homl's gear list:Homl's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 90D
Richard Crowe Veteran Member • Posts: 3,318
I like neither the 17-40l nor the 17-55mm

I just thought that I would put my 2-cents worth into this thread. These lenses are neither wide enough nor long enough for my tastes (although the 17-55 is much better at the long end than the 17-40L). They tend to be in a never-never land for me. The 17-40L drove me crazy at the longer end because 40mm does nothing for my tastes and 17mm is wide but, not wide enough for me on a 1.6x camera.

I prefer a 3-lens combination anchored with a great mid-range zoom. I shoot with a 24-70 f/2.8L but, the 24-105mm f/4L IS or the Tamron or Sigma mid range-zooms would certainly fit into my scheme also.

I do 70-80% of my shooting with the 24-70L. The 24mm side is wide enough for a good percentage of my shooting but, when I switch to a wide lens - I want a WIDE lens. The 70mm is not really long, but much better than 40 or 55mm.

For my wide lens, I chose the 12-24mm f/4L Tokina. The vista of a good lens with a 10mm or 12mm wide end will blow away the lenses that have 17mm as their wide side. Subjectively, although I never did a head to head test, I like the Tokina better than the 17-40L as far as quality of imagery and there is no comparison regarding the angle of view.

I guess that the 17-40L might be a decent lens for a full-frame camera but, IMO, it doesn't work on a 1.6x body; either on the short or the long side. Regarding the long side of the 17-40L - that computes to 64mm; not exactly a favorite focal length in photography. Except for the 60mm macro, I can't think of a prime lens ever being produced in that focal length.

On the long side of my 24-70L, I use a 70-200mm f/4L. The build and quality of imagery is great and I can throw on a 1.4x TC if I need a longer lens. Sure, I'd like an f/2.8 aperture but, I am vascilating about paying the price either in $$$ or more importantly in weight. I would very much like to have IS and may feel a need to convert to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS someday despite its greater weight and bulk.

At one time; I thought that I could be happy with a 17-40L on one body and a 70-200mm f/4L on another. That was not the case - I really missed the range between 40 and 70mm.

By the way, I shoot with two 1.6x cameras and have no intention of switching to full frame at any time. Carrying two bodies mounted with either the 12-24mm and 24-70mm or the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm gives me a great amount of freedom in my shooting.

Would I like IS on my shorter lenses? I see no need on the 12-24mm but, perhaps someday I will get an itch for the 24-105mm f/4L IS. The nice thing about L lenses is that they hold their value. I purchased my 24-70L used and I am sure I will get my money back at any time if I decide to sell it and convert to the 24-105mm IS.

As far as cost; a 3-lens combination (if you selected the Tamron 28-75mm as your mid range zoom) would not be excessively more exppensive than the 17-55mm Canon alone.

-- hide signature --

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate - 30 years service. Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director and Naval Aircrewman. I have done considerable comercial photography including advertising, weddings and portraiture.

dr_mat Regular Member • Posts: 223
Re: To be fair, the angle of the photos to the lenses should be the same.

I knew someone would say that.

Anyway, we were talking about flare, not CA.

Homl wrote:

Here are the photos of a lens with one of the lowest CA.
Glass bottle like? Maybe at certain angles.

Photos taken with a 17-55f2.8IS.

-- hide signature --

Why is the universe filled with shiny things I want to buy?

Lee Baby Simms Contributing Member • Posts: 930
17-55 conforms to a well defined segment

Mid zooms for flim cameras arrived at 28-70, later 28-85. This is a crop version of that 'classic' product.

The 10-22 & 24~X is a compelling combo on an EFS camera. I tried it, but found the split odd.

I wish this new lens was a 15-50/2.8, but am happy to use it all the same. I just go to the 10-22 when I want something really wide. It's not a 2.8, and I really like a have a wide at 2.8

 Lee Baby Simms's gear list:Lee Baby Simms's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +10 more
Katsoulis Regular Member • Posts: 393
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Homl wrote:

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.

Absolutely not. This sort of bloom does not occur with any other of my lenses. Bloom should occur regardless of the lens, correct? Even in the harshest, most contrasty situations, I've never seen my 20D do this before.

Moreover, if you see my other post, you will see that, side by side, the same exposure with the same camera under the same lighting conditions does not produce this sort of problem with a 24-85 lens, but with the 17-55 it is quite apparent.

dsl_r Senior Member • Posts: 1,023
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

this might stir me from switching to Canon

David Chin Forum Pro • Posts: 11,670
What a ...

... long thread!

But thanks Tomm, for the huge effort you put into writing up your findings, and for posting up the image samples.

Linked up at :> http://www.canonmount.com/3/canon-17-55-vs-17-40

-- hide signature --

Regards, David Chin
(D.7.0. & C.P.4.5.0.0.)
Links to all my other sites at :> http://www.flickr.com/people/davidchinphoto

OP Tomm Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: What a ...

Wow, that's a great summary! Thanks for doing it; I'm sure people will find it a useful resource.

  • Tomm

David Chin wrote:

... long thread!

But thanks Tomm, for the huge effort you put into writing up your
findings, and for posting up the image samples.

Linked up at :> http://www.canonmount.com/3/canon-17-55-vs-17-40

Anthony de Vries Veteran Member • Posts: 3,789
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Roy van der Woning wrote:

Funny that you consider the vignetting a "HUGE" problem. The lens
is nothing worse than any EF lens does on FF camera's...

Assuming that you mean EF-S instead of EF, where does it say that
the OP is using it on a FF camera?

No. I absolutely mean EF on FF. (EF-S on FF is nonsense)

Any EF lens on FF will give considerable vignetting as well when used wide open. We don't see that on cropped sensor, because it only uses the center part. Sure, that's an advantage of using EF lenses on cropped sensors.

But this "huge" vignetting problem of the EF-S was considered totally acceptable in the last few decades when using EF lenses on FF bodies.

BTW... At f/4, the EF-S 17-55 has the same level of vignetting as the 17-40L.

Anthony de Vries Veteran Member • Posts: 3,789
Re: Thanks for the test

GaborSch wrote:

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.

0.3 to 0.2 Ev is a problem?

At those apertures, the light fall off is exactly the same as any other lens, for example the 17-40L....

s e a n New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Hi, i had my 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lense for nearly 2 and half months. and just got my 400D not long ago, now i having a difficulty doing the focusing, compare to my previous Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 on my 350D. i found that either is problem with my lens or my camera or some setting that i miss off. or perhaps is the sensitivity of 9 AF points. Its focus clearly on one spot. but not others. and i couldn't work out to have it "clear focusing" on average. try to go f3.5 and so on. but still. can anyone please advise. thanks

AAJ Forum Member • Posts: 55
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

This was very helpful to me particularly because I have just received the 17-40 and am wondering if I should get the 17-55 2.8 instead. Not sure if you read the following glowing review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The one at Photozone is also strong but not as glowing:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

bad_doggie Contributing Member • Posts: 721
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Anthony de Vries wrote:

BTW... At f/4, the EF-S 17-55 has the same level of vignetting as
the 17-40L.

actually, correct! voila!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=398&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=100&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Camera=396&CameraComp=9

btw. DxO fixes this so easily. (as does other PP s/w.)

Jack Wilson Junior Member • Posts: 27
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

This thread is causing me grief :^)

I am using a 20D and trying to decide between a 17-55 IS and 17-40L and I do shoot some weddings where I am in a flash restricted church, which the 17-55 would seem ideally suited for.....

and I am torn between the 2 ....

Jack

Greg Kovacs Senior Member • Posts: 1,425
And you can easily correct light falloff (nt)

Anthony de Vries wrote:

GaborSch wrote:

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.

0.3 to 0.2 Ev is a problem?

At those apertures, the light fall off is exactly the same as any
other lens, for example the 17-40L....

-- hide signature --

Greg

 Greg Kovacs's gear list:Greg Kovacs's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony FE 50mm F1.8
Collin85 Regular Member • Posts: 463
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

I own the 17-40L and here's my take:

If you do mainly landscapes, have no real need for a fast lens and want a lens with impeccable build quality, the 17-40L is a real winner. Even if you do do low-light work, good flash techniques can overcome the lack of f/2.8.

If you do alot of low-light work (i.e want the f/2.8), better bokeh, prefer the longer range (I must admit that sometimes it would be useful if the 17-40 just had a slightly longer range), need IS and don't care too much about build quality, then the 17-55 might be the answer.

Just analyse what kind of photography you do and you will find your answer!

Good luck.

Jack Wilson wrote:

This thread is causing me grief :^)

I am using a 20D and trying to decide between a 17-55 IS and 17-40L
and I do shoot some weddings where I am in a flash restricted
church, which the 17-55 would seem ideally suited for.....

and I am torn between the 2 ....

Jack

-- hide signature --

Collin

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads