18-55 kit lens vs my new 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

I purchased a second hand f/2.8 17-55mm IS USM and decided to test to see if it was any sharper than the kit lens that came with my EOS 1300D (the 18-55mm IS II)

Not sure it's hugely sharper.. maybe a little. I guess it's nice to have a slightly better max aperture tho

Not quite sure why the sky looks nicer in the first one - same white balance and exposure (at least, I realise the shutter speeds are different, but the metering was on zero for both)

StuartT50 wrote:

I purchased a second hand f/2.8 17-55mm IS USM and decided to test to see if it was any sharper than the kit lens that came with my EOS 1300D (the 18-55mm IS II)

Not sure it's hugely sharper.. maybe a little. I guess it's nice to have a slightly better max aperture tho

Indeed.  You won't see much difference at f/8.  In fact I've used the kit lens(es) to shoot scenics for years because they're very good stopped down.  You'll benefit from the 17-55's advantages in other types of shooting.

(not quite sure why the sky looks nice in the first one - same white balance and exposure)

The second shot is actually an entire stop greater exposure than the first.  There's also a definite difference in contrast (check the shadows).  The white balance is quite a bit different between the two shots too.  I'm thinking the sun was slightly veiled in the second shot.  That would explain the differences we're seeing.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

The second shot is actually an entire stop greater exposure than the first.

Sorry, I edited the post after you replied.

I realise the shutter speeds are different, but the camera's meter was on zero for both (so they must be both exposed correctly, no?)

StuartT50 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

The second shot is actually an entire stop greater exposure than the first.

Sorry, I edited the post after you replied.

I realise the shutter speeds are different, but the camera's meter was on zero for both (so they must be both exposed correctly, no?)

No.

StuartT50 wrote:

I purchased a second hand f/2.8 17-55mm IS USM and decided to test to see if it was any sharper than the kit lens that came with my EOS 1300D (the 18-55mm IS II)

Not sure it's hugely sharper.. maybe a little. I guess it's nice to have a slightly better max aperture tho

Not quite sure why the sky looks nicer in the first one - same white balance and exposure (at least, I realise the shutter speeds are different, but the metering was on zero for both)

A little sharper ? The difference is quite obvious IMO. Look at the right upper side, the bricks on the house to the left and the details of the gras. Did not even have to open the large file to see the 17-55 is sharper.

The sky on the first pics looks better because it is blown out on the second. Simply due to the bigger difference between sky and foreground. Try -1EV on the second and the sky will be fine I expect (but off course the foreground will be underexposed).

maarensv wrote:

StuartT50 wrote:

I purchased a second hand f/2.8 17-55mm IS USM and decided to test to see if it was any sharper than the kit lens that came with my EOS 1300D (the 18-55mm IS II)

Not sure it's hugely sharper.. maybe a little. I guess it's nice to have a slightly better max aperture tho

Not quite sure why the sky looks nicer in the first one - same white balance and exposure (at least, I realise the shutter speeds are different, but the metering was on zero for both)

A little sharper ? The difference is quite obvious IMO. Look at the right upper side, the bricks on the house to the left and the details of the gras. Did not even have to open the large file to see the 17-55 is sharper.

The sky on the first pics looks better because it is blown out on the second. Simply due to the bigger difference between sky and foreground. Try -1EV on the second and the sky will be fine I expect (but off course the foreground will be underexposed).

Yes, you are right actually.

thanks.

didn't waste my money then