File :-(, x, )
17-40 vs. 18-55 IS Anonymous
I wasn't sure if I wanted to post this because it's more of my personal experience on the matter and also because the conclusion is pretty much the same as other people online.

As much as I wanted to do this as "scientifically" as possible, I don't even have a tripod. So there's none of that test chart, garage door, newspaper stuff.

>> It's ENTIRELY my personal experience and opinion.

There it's highlighted.

So anyway, one of the reasons I'm posting this is I remember reading a thread recently where someone asked if it was justified to spend $650 ($700 now because of gas prices, but still $650 because of instant rebates, lulz) on the EF 17-40 f/4 L or $175 on the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

I have the 18-55 IS (a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 L IS, if you must know) and have been looking for an upgrade.

So I go and rent a 17-40 for the lulz.

Mechanical performance is top notch. Focusing is fast and silent. The 18-55 IS _feels_ fast but you can see the difference between the two. But it's not like I've ever told myself "Gee, I sure wish it would snap to focus faster" with the 18-55 IS. However, I do tell myself how I'd like it if it were more accurate.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
What the 17-40 definitely does better is that you can use it wide open at f/4 and it still looks good. I almost never use the 18-55 IS wide open because everything looks flat and smudged. It's pretty good at f/6.3 or so but by that time, the 17-40 is even better.

My PERSONAL conclusion is, no I would probably not buy the 17-40 because I'm just not confident using it at f/4 indoors. Yes, the 18-55 IS is slower but the IS is reliable for static subjects. (I do have a flash but sometimes if I can get away with 1/10ish at ISO 400 or 800, I prefer doing it without a flash.)
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>184857
I'm not astounded by the 17-40's image quality. I had a $250 Tamron 17-35 that had better IQ to my eyes but the Canon just rocks for build quality. I'm not careful with my camera gear because I'm usually too busy trying to get the shot I want to worry about bumping my camera on something or dropping it on the ground. Knowing my lens is tough enough to take my abuse is worth the extra cost.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
F4 isn't great for indoor photography. I agree it's sharper, but on a crop body you won't see much of a difference at the widest setting.

There's a good review I read here. Pretty much at 18mm, the lens looked almost the same as the L, but at 55 it looks like utter shit:

http://www.fountainphoto.com/2004/05/10/canon-ef-17-40l-vs-ef-s-18-55
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>184862
Yeah, also this. Some Sigma and Tamron lenses have been discussed to provide the same or even better performance at often a fraction of the cost. I was serious about buying the 17-40L until I saw some results from similar third-party manufacturers.
>> Anonymous
>>184862I'm not astounded by the 17-40's image quality

I'm not astounded either. But it _does_ look better than the 18-55 IS, both unprocessed. The images do come out better in camera.

>> Knowing my lens is tough enough to take my abuse is worth the extra cost.

The extra cost, for me, would be good wide open, constant f/4, build quality, focus speed but most importantly, it's compatible with film and full frame.

>>184863

That test is with the old 18-55. I think my 18-55 IS is close to the 17-40 I had but not quite there.