Canon EF 17-40L vs. EF-S 18-55
I recently upgraded from the Canon Digital Rebel 300D kit lens, the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, to the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 “L-glass” lens. As one would expect, and hope, the much more expensive L-series lens has proved much more capable optically and mechanically. But I thought before I got rid of the EF-S 18-55mm, I’d post an entry with a quick comparison.
Note:This comparison was made with the Mark I version of the 18-55mm lens. Canon released a Mark II along with the release of the Digital Rebel XT 8MP body, which supposedly changes some of the optical characteristics. So take this comparison with a grain of salt, as they say.
|
|
First off, this is not intended to be a full review of either of these lenses. there are plenty of reviews out there on the web, and anyone seriously considering buying either of these lenses should certainly review those. This entry is just a quick side-by-side of the two lenses, to satisfy my own curiosity.
The 18-55 is an extremely light, “consumer” zoom, all plastic. The weight makes it really convenient. But the other mechanics of it are definitely lower-grade. The front element moves when zooming and the focusing ring is external, turns filters when focusing, and is difficult to manipulate manually. The 17-40 is a pro lens from Canon’s high-end series, and although much heavier, also feels rock-solid. It’s all metal, has internal focusing, and a real USM motor mechanism. It also is somewhat larger, and has a much bigger front lens element, 77mm as compared to the smaller 58mm (much cheaper filters!) of the 18-55.
The 18-55 lens is usable only on the Canon Digital Rebel 300D, as it uses the new EF-S mount. The “S” stands for short-back, and indicates that the lens back protrudes farther into the camera body than allowed by cameras other than the 300D. There are resources on the web with instructions for modifying this lens physically to mount on all EF-mount bodies, which could make it a great inexpensive ultra-wide-angle lens on film bodies. The 17-40 works on all Canon EF-mount cameras.
It’s worth mentioning again the “digital crop-factor” of most Canon digital cameras (the exception being the full-frame $8000 Canon 1Ds). These digital cameras operate with a sensor frame smaller than that of a 35mm film frame, and thus effectively crop out the edges of the frame, with a factor of 1.6. So the 18-55mm lens has an equivalent view of 28-88mm, and the 17-40mm has an effective view of 27-64mm. This means that although these lenses are extremely wide-angle lenses optically, they are more standard wide-zooms on digital cameras. As a side note, I haven’t heard anything about the optically quality at the edges of the 18-55 on a full-frame body (as it doesn’t naturally fit those), but I expect that it is not stellar, since the edges of the frame were never intended to be captured on the sensor.
The only real question I’ll address here is the difference in zoom-range for these lenses, and the sharpness of the lens wide/short, and open/closed. Hopefully, I can give some test-images that will let you decide for yourself whether the more expensive 17-40 lens is worth the money, or meets your photographic needs.
Here’s a full-frame shot to see the different field of view between the 17mm and 18mm ranges on these two lenses. There isn’t much difference when we are this wide already. Remember, this is a 35mm equivalent of 27mm and 28mm, respectively. Note: All the photos were processed using auto-levels, auto-contrast, auto-color, and Unsharp Mask of 100%, radius of 1.0
EF 17-40/4.0 Full Scene as taken with the widest, 17mm, field of view.
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 Full Scene as taken with the widest, 18mm, field of view.
We’ll start by taking a look at 3 shots at the widest angle on each of these zooms. They are taken first with the largest aperture, then at the forgiving f/8.0, and lastly, fully stopped down.
 EF 17-40mm @ 17mm f/4.0 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 18mm f/3.5 |
Wide open, the 18-55 seems pretty dismal. To be fair, it is at 3.5, while the 17-40 is at 4.0. Nevertheless, there isn’t anywhere on the mulch that’s crisp. The lens quite obviously suffers wide-open.
 EF 17-40mm @ 17mm f/8.0 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 18mm f/8.0 |
At f/8.0, the story is different. The EF-S performs quite well. In fact, it seems to perform a little better in this particular test. I’d be surprised if this result is typical, but it shows that the EF-S is definitely in the same ballpark, in the center of the frame, for moderate apertures.
 EF 17-40mm @ 17mm f/22 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 18mm f/22 |
When we close down these two lenses at wide-aperture, we see that again the 17-40 has an edge. The 18-55 is much softer, although not nearly as bad as at f/3.5. Be aware that these exposures were well over one second, due to the late evening light on the scene.
Next, let’s look at the lenses at full-zoom. Here, the field of view difference is much more apparent. The difference between an effective 64mm and 88mm is significant, and may make the 18-55 lens a much more practical choice as a “walking-around” lens. I find often that I’m craving a little more than 64mm equivalent when I’m stuck with the 17-40 lens.
EF 17-40/4.0 Full Scene as taken at a 40mm field of view.
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 Full Scene as taken with a 55mm field of view.
 EF 17-40mm @ 40mm f/4.0 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 55mm f/5.6 |
 EF 17-40mm @ 40mm f/8.0 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 55mm f/8.0 |
 EF 17-40mm @ 40mm f/22 |
 EF-S 18-55mm @ 55mm f/36 |
I think these pictures speak for themselves. Although the zoom of 55mm is useful on the EF-S lens, the optical quality at this focal length leaves something to be desired. All the photos are quite soft, at all apertures. Even at f/8.0, the 17-40 lens easily outperforms the 18-55.
Conclusion: The upgrade to the 17-40mm “L” glass is definitely worth it if you are looking for the most crisp photos you can get, and the most flexibility. Although there are faster wide-angle lenses out there, a fixed aperture of f/4.0 gives enough flexibility both indoors and outside. If the EF-S lens could perform as well wide-open at the 17-40, it would be a very capable lens. But unfortunately, it doesn’t perform even close, except at middle apertures, and even that may not be true. All that having been said, is the 18-55mm lens worth the $100 in the Digital Rebel kit? Absolutely. For the money, I can definitely recommend this lens. I personally started with it, and upgraded to the 17-40mm when I was ready for more serious shooting in this range, and I wanted something that would give me the same quality as the other L-lenses I own.
May 20th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
Thanks for this, I found the link on fredmiranda.com and I have been looking for this type of side by side comparisons of these 2 lenses. I am currently a owner of the Kit lens looking into damage my wallet with the 17-40 L lens.
May 21st, 2004 at 12:27 am
WOW!!! I was gonna to do this comparison this weekend but it seemed that you did it for me.
Thanks!!!
May 21st, 2004 at 6:46 pm
I am trying to make up my mind on which lens to upgrade to between the Canon 17-40 L or the Sigma 12-24 DG. Both are close in cost. I am in the process of selling some old film equipment, and I plan on getting one of these lenses. Which one in your opinion excels overall. loa..
May 23rd, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Wowsers! The 17-40L is definitely the lens for me. I’ve been using the 18-55 which i bought second hand with the camera for about 2 weeks. Time for an upgrade!
May 29th, 2004 at 6:09 am
I own a 17-40, i have changed with my old 17-35.
What a difference!!!. I used it on my EOS 30d.
Pictures are sharp at all apertures, wonderful colour rendition.
June 10th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
It’s a pity you enlarged the 18-55mm details to much. By doing that … wel, please explain if I’m wrong.
June 10th, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Thanks for the comment W.J. Be aware that all the photos on this page are 100% crops. None of them are enlarged beyond what came out of the camera.
The focal differences change the field-of-view somewhat, but there is definitely no upsampling going on. There are pros and cons to doing a same-field-of-view vs. same-size-and-crop method I used here. Since this wasn’t meant to be a technically robust look at these two lenses, I picked this way to show the results. Sorry if it was confusing.
June 17th, 2004 at 4:51 am
Thanks a lot for doing such an effort to make us decide which lens to choose. I liked the way you capared side by side.
June 19th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
thanks, I was looking for this exact comparison on the 300D. I’ve recently been looking to replace my 18-55mm lens and have been taking in by the 17-40mm; now that I can see the comparrison I know it’s definately worth parting ways with my money to upgrade.
June 22nd, 2004 at 2:38 pm
Wow, this is what I have been looking for. Only wish there are more comparison like this available. But after seeing the power of L glasses, I guess none is needed any more. I’ve just got a 10D and after a few shots with my way old 35-135 f4.5/5.6 USM lens (with my EOS-10s, which retired himself after 12 years of service and thousands of rolls), I am ready for a new lens and is debating if I should start with 17-40 f4.0L or 70-200 f/4.0 but your write up clears every doubt. I hope there would be a side by side comparison for 70-200 f4.0L and 70-200 f2.8L somewhere in the world.
June 23rd, 2004 at 2:22 am
In this test, you didn’t do a completely
correct test IMHO. You didn’t compare the 40mm@18-55 lens with 40mm@17-40 lens, instead, you compared 55mm@18-55lens with 40mm@17-40 lens. I am confident the 40mm@18-55 could be much better than 55mm, since 40mm is close to the middle of the focus range (18+55)/2=36.5. Moreover, you compared 40mm F22 with 55mm F36! Everyone knows the image quality is poor at F36!
And let’s see the wide angle part, in my opinion, the 18mm@F8 outperforms 17mm@F8, the contrast is better for 18-55 lens. 17mm@F4 outperforms
18mm@f3.5, this time you didn’t add a test of 18mm@f4. And, for landscape, using F8 for the most situations, 18-55 seems at least as good as 17-40L if it’s not better.
So actually my conclusion from this comparsion is: 18-55 is good enough.
July 12th, 2004 at 1:45 pm
I love this lens! I still shoot film with my Canon Elan 7, mostly Fuji Velvia 50 for wilderness landscapes while backpacking. It’s a relatively light lens that is perfect for what I do.
Here’s some shots I took with this lens while backpacking the John Muir Trail last summer.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=334185
July 13th, 2004 at 3:44 am
Just recently I bought my Digital Rebel. I’m a novice to photography, but an Expert in Graphics. From what I see on those pictures, I came up with the conclusion that:
a) I’m thankful for the 18-55mm I bought with the Rebel.
b) Though impressive, the 17-40mm (for over $600) just doesn’t pose enough of a difference for me to go with the upgrade.
Final Conclusion:
We’re talking about a lens that costs $600+ dollars. I choose to save this money and put it towards a lens that makes a remarkable difference when compared to my 18-55mm. Thanks for the review, it helps a lot :)
August 21st, 2004 at 2:57 pm
Good idea of comparison. And to you who thinks that the 18-55 manages to do a somewhat decent apperance side to side with the 17-40 - my comment is:
we haven’t seen the 100% crops from the corners yet.
There we probably would see a big difference. (I agree though that the comparison had been more interesting if it compared 18 to 18 and 40 to 40 with same aperture.)
I have a 18-55 for my 10D (and yes, I have modified it to fit the 10D) but I seldom use it. I’m thinking of buying a 17-40 to complement my 24/2.8 and Sigma 28-80/3.5-4-5. I really want a fast 18-20 prime but canons 20/2.8 seems to be anything but sharp.
I’ve used a 16-35/2.8 together with a 1Ds but I was really disappointed with very soft edges and a great deal of chromatic aberration (probably less on a non full framed digital camera).
October 14th, 2004 at 4:03 am
thanks, can you show some low light comparing pics
October 14th, 2004 at 10:24 am
Kan,
I no longer have the 18-55, so I can’t do any more comparisons, unfortunately. But the fixed 4.0 aperture of the 17-40 should make it better in low-light situations. The 18-55 works much more poorly wide-open, so without a tripod, low-light shots won’t be very sharp.
November 4th, 2004 at 11:59 pm
Comment ca va?
November 6th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
Hi Will. Thanks for your test, bat i think that is not very fine and not much attendible.
I recalibrate yours immage (only luminosity) for esay comparision. I find that EF 17-40 17mm at f/4.0 is most sharpen than at f/8.0 ?!!!
No possible !!!… What is the problema ?
Sencond, if you compare EF 17-40 40mm at f/4.0 and same at f/8.0: at f/8.0 foliage are evidently most sharpen (ok), bat grass are so-so (tiny difference with f/4.0). Possible ?
Mmmm…
February 13th, 2005 at 9:46 am
I also have the 18-55 and 17-40 f4/L lense. My tests generally confirm the results posted; the 17-40 is generally better across the whole zoom range. However, at f8.0 the 18-55 performance is very close (CA is always worse though) - I am keeping mine because on occasions I prefer the lower weight, the greater focal length and the smaller size. I also have the 55-200 and 70-200 f4/L lenses. The 70-200 is much better optically but again the 55-200 is reasonable at f11. There are occasions when weight really matters so I am keeping this lens also.
March 8th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Well, my 18-55mm is a heck of a lot sharper than yours. Maybe you got a bad copy?
It’s as sharp at f/3.5 as the sample from the EF 17-40mm @ 17mm f/4.0. It’s also pretty sharp at f/5.6 55mm - a lot better than the sample above.
When I get round to it I’ll post some samples.
http://www.jarnell.com/home.htm
April 17th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Absolutely chose to Canon EF 17-40 1:4L more that EF-S 17-85. Since its colour and shapeness is much much better that 17-85. But the worse things is that its selling price in HONG KONG around $5300 dallars in HK and was much expensive that EF-S 17-85 as well.
April 22nd, 2005 at 9:48 pm
It looks like you got a bad copy of 18-55mm
July 20th, 2005 at 3:07 am
Thanks for all the info. Well, I’m still looking forward to buy 17-40mm lens as it contains lot of valuable characteristics interms of its materials. I have my 28-135IS but not so wide when I used my 10D. Finally, I am impatient to have the 17-40mm
September 10th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Thanks for your great comparo. I was thinking today that I wanted to upgrade my 18-55 EF-S Lens that I purchased and modified to fit my 10D. In reality it takes good pictures but I never noticed until today that they are not great. I compared my shots with an L lens and found out they were never as sharp. If you see them on a 17 inch monitor you can’t see it. But when you zoom in you can for sure see the difference. I am going to buy some L lens to replace this one 18-55. Everyone’s right, for casual is good enough. But then why use casual low quality on a high end Canon EOS?
September 11th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
I figured I should add more for the comparison. I went out and shot with my 10D with two of my lenses the 18-55 modified and the other lens USM canon 28-105. I was amazed at how both looked the same at f8. I did not get a chance to do further testing but this shows you a $100 lens looks the same as a $300 lens. If I have time I will get an L lens and try this again. I did compensate for lighting in one of the shots so that they both look the same brightness. Here are the two photos: 28-105 lens http://www.joeflux.com/canon/CRW_2334_RT8-28-105Tv180Av8.jpg and the 18-55 lens http://www.joeflux.com/canon/CRW_2335_RT8-18-55Tv180Av8.jpg
September 12th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Yes, Jorge, at f/8, even cheap lenses perform quite admirably. That’s the optimal area for most lenses. The place where L-glass really shines are at the egdes of the lens area, and at the edges of the aperture spectrum. In my experience, I tend to use my lenses wide-open pretty regularly, especially indoors, so it matters on many of my photos. If you are mostly an outdoor photographer, or working with a tripod, landscapes, etc., then a less-expensive lens should totally meet those needs.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:40 am
Comparing the kit lens to “L” glass is the stupidest
thing I have ever seen. What a pathetic “test”.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:13 pm
I think most realize this should be a blow away comparison. I would be curious to see the 17-85 IS USM in the 17-40 range up against the 17-40L (not complaining…you did more than us) But what you have done and shared is great to show and try to explain to people the value of a quality lens. Even my wife and daughter found it interesting, and trust me, that’s not normal….
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:07 am
Sharpness over the entire zoom and f-stop rangesisn’t all that you (usually) gain in an L-series lens. Equally important is that increased contrast ratio and punchy colours. I bought my 17-40 for my 300D not because I wasn’t happy with the sharpness of the 18-55 kit lens (it was adequate for me), but because I was trying to get close to the wonderful colours and contrast I get out of my prime 50mm f/1.8 mkII lens.
The super-fast ring (USM) focus and full-time manual focus is nice too…
Something to keep in mind…
January 4th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
First of all I would like to say that you are giving some very dangerous misinformation in your post. If someone were to modify an EF-S lens so that it may fit in an EF only camera that has a full frame sensor or was a film camera the mirror would crash into the back of the lens. The only cameras that this would work for are the 10D and D60 ( and I’m not even sure about the D60 ) because of their APS sized sensor and thus smaller mirrors. One other point I would like to address is you talking about the edges of the EF-S 18-55 lens’s image circle on a full frame / 35mm camera. You state that they are not meant to be exposed to the sensor / film. EF-S lenses have smaller image circles and so APS sized sensors ARE being exposed to the edges of that image circle.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Thanks for your comments, Neil. I may have been too broad in my statements about EF-S lens modification. I’ve seen it done safely on a 10D, but it may not in fact work on some of the newer cameras like the Rebel series. Certainly anyone undertaking such a modification should consult well-written guides and plan on severely voiding their warranty!
-Will
January 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I think when using auto-contrast, auto-color true picture might be misleading. How about comparing unprocessed images?
Would there be much difference if shooting under better lighting conditions, shutter speed of over 1 sec seems little slow.
Seems like “kit” is not far behind in some areas.
March 16th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for the comparison. I only have the kit lens now, but i’m waiting on the new EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens to come out. Although I have been looking at this 17-40mm L for quite some time now.
March 21st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Great comparison.
Anyone did a test of 18-55 vs. 17-40L at its edges, ie: at 18mm and 4.0 and 40mm and 4.0?
I personally have the 17-40L, which I bought right away with the 350d (without having the 18-55 before), but now consider selling it off to get a faster prime ie. 28 1.8 and would then need to complement it with a 18-55 for the wide angle.
May 28th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Will,
Thank you very much for putting your time into this for us curious photographers. I’m personally blown away by the total lack of appreciation by the people who left comments. I know it took a lot of time and effort to create this page. I admit, I would like to have seen the mm to mm comparison and same with aperature to aperature. However, it’s not your personal responsibilty to the world to do such detailed comparisons. I thank you again for your unselfish contribution to the photography world.
As for the rest of you, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Gary
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:16 am
Will,
Nice comparison. I just wanted to point out that Canon seems to
have changed the 18-55mm kit lens when releasing the 350D/RebelXT.
The one you tested is the “Mark I” version that came with the 300D/Rebel,
right? Supposedly (according to the review on dpreview.com) the “Mark II”
has sharpened up the edges at 18mm in exchange for making the lens less sharp
at f8, as I recall. Anyway, this is the Mark I version you tested, right?
Regards,
Tim
June 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Yes, Tim, this was the Mark I version, I’ve made a note in the original post to that point. Thanks for pointing that out.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
thank you. you have been most helpfull :)
September 29th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
T.Y. I appreciate your demonstration.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 am
thank you, it has been a great help!
December 19th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Hello,
Can you help me to find
The best soft to PC-where to buy, join site & other tipe to do a home online business.
With best regards.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Thanks for posting your test results. I have a 20d and have been recently researching the 17-40L. I do have a very nice copy of the kit lens though.
Thanks again!