Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 3, 2004, 6:37 PM   #1
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62

Just received the 17~40 today from Adorama and made a back to back comparison with the EF-S that came with my 300D.

Throughout the range of F stops and zoom, the 17~40 tends to be just a tad faster. What I mean is. in Av mode, taking the exact same picture under the exact same settings, the shutter speed is either the same or slightly faster than with the EF-S.

The 17~40 also has more vivid colors... as if the saturation were turned up just a bit (similar to a 3% increase using CaptureOne). However, this may have been caused by the UV filter.

The exposure on the 17~40 is more consistent. With the EF-S lens, taking the same shot repeatedly,I'd get slight variations in exposure level. This does not happen with the 17~40. Also, the exposure on the 17~40 is a little darker, say about -0.2 using CaptureOne.

The 17~40 gives f4 throughout the entire zoom range, while the EF-S can only go to f5 or so when zoomed beyond about 25mm.

At f4, the sharpness differences are easy to spot throughout the entire zoom range. They're obvious in the corners but visible even in the center of the image.

At f8, the sharpness differences are subtle. You can see it in the corners if you look for it, and also in the center the EF-S just looks a tad "softer".

At f22, the sharpness differences are so subtle they're hard to see, even when you look carefully in the corners.

Overall the 17~40 is a better lens and it now "lives" on my camera.But the comparison shows that the EF-S really is a pretty decent lens.

Hope that info is useful to somebody... cheers.
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 4, 2004, 1:12 PM   #2
Senior Member
Setiprime's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484

Thanks for the concise evaluation. I have found that a serious user generally gives better "real Life" and "hands on" information than most magazines.

Of course SOMEONE will come along and pick at you for not being "more precise".

Anal is as anal does - (pardon me, Forrest)

Thanks again

Jon F.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2004, 1:49 PM   #3
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 62

I took about 100 pictures yesterday afternoon in my garden with my daughter and my wife (1 GB cards are nice!). Lots of flowers, rocks, grass, skin tones, etc. What I found was that sharpness doesn't tell the whole story. Yes the 17~40 is sharper but even more noticeable is the overall effect. Pictures from the 17~40 are more punchy, yet somehow more natural too. The contrast and colors are crisp yet smooth, vivid yet natural.

When I zoom in and analyze the shots, each individual comparison doesn't seem like much. But subjectively, the overall effect is greater than the sum of the parts. Even my wife, who isn't into photography, was saying "wow"...
mrc01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2004, 1:14 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585

Very good analysis about the lens. I was curious at the cost of the 17-40mm lens and went on the web and the cost was between $650 to $700 dollars.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:47 PM.