tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19236882.post116822833584145668..comments2023-07-23T02:22:14.711-06:00Comments on Dick McGowan: 17-40DMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09880142352896797590noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19236882.post-1171292295428437742007-02-12T08:58:00.000-06:002007-02-12T08:58:00.000-06:00Hello there,after purchasing the 17-40 L (my first...Hello there,<BR/><BR/>after purchasing the 17-40 L (my first L class lens) I ran some test (newspaper test and real life test) at various aperture (5.4, 7.1, 9.0) and focal length (17mm, 28mm, 40mm) between the 17-40 L and the 18-55 EF-S from the Rebel XT kit.<BR/><BR/>I was very disappointed by the 17-40. At 17mm the center sharpness was the same as the kit lens on the edges and the corners....the kit was better.<BR/><BR/>At 28mm and 40mm the 17-40 has an edge....except in the corner where the kit lens is as good or better.<BR/><BR/>The color is obviously better with the 17-40 and the contrast as well. However I found the 17-40 to have too much contrast to my taste. Contrast can be easily added in post processing...it is hard to remove without adding noise.<BR/><BR/>I was interested in this lens because it has the full frame compatibility. However after seeing the sharpness at the borders and corners on the APS-C format I clearly don't think it will be good in the corners of a FF sensor!!!!<BR/><BR/>So for a $700 lens I have to say that I was expecting better. I ended up like you...returning it to the store and taking the Sigma 17-70.<BR/><BR/>I ran the same tests...the sigma shows more consistency across the frame. The 17mm is the weak spot like the 17-40, however the sharpness from 22mm is better than the kit lens. All that for half the price of the 17-40. Only one remark, the color are a bit warm with the 17-70 where they were accurate with the 17-70.<BR/><BR/>Chromatic aberrations are virtually the same on the 17-40 and 17-70...way better than the kit lens.<BR/><BR/>I still consider the "L" class lenses from Canon. Beside the construction quality of the 17-40, I don't see why Canon put that lens in that class. Optical Quality is not there. <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>LaurentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19236882.post-1168290360407715042007-01-08T15:06:00.000-06:002007-01-08T15:06:00.000-06:00Yeah, I don't know what is up with Canon, but thei...Yeah, I don't know what is up with Canon, but their quality control is HORRIBLE. I'm not the only one with a soft copy recently. For nearly the same price, you can get the sigma 17-70 2.8 (wayyyyy better for low light than the f4 on the 17-40), AND a Sigma 10-20 UWA. Both very SHARP lenses. Darin has some GREAT examples of the 17-70 on www.tornadolive.com . I agree with others that Sigma owns the wide angles, and Canon owns the telephotos.DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09880142352896797590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19236882.post-1168269696614260452007-01-08T09:21:00.000-06:002007-01-08T09:21:00.000-06:00Thanks for the commentary. I have been lens shopp...Thanks for the commentary. I have been lens shopping for about a month now and information like this is very helpful.Steve Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12124800242380216626noreply@blogger.com