worth for a L lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

zzyzx

New Member
Aug 25, 2007
784
0
0
#1
my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
Check the lens reviews at photozone.de
 

adamadam

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2004
3,637
0
0
32
Perth
www.flickr.com
#3
my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..
I think that this will be a nice upgrade
The larger aperture, and slightly wider angle is good. It's also bigger, heavier and without IS, but I prefer larger aperture over IS.

Get the 16-35 if you need the larger aperture :D
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#4
Do you need the upgrade? Are you absolutely sure the lack of sharpness (I'm assuming the tug to upgrade comes from a lack of sharpness) is purely due to the lens, or is it (hopefully not, but possible) user error?
 

genegoh

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2006
649
0
16
Simei
www.photosbymarbles.com
#5
How abt the 17-55 f2.8 IS ?
Advantages are F2.8 , IS and longer reach, esp if u want to shoot people.
Plus it's cheaper.
That's if you don't intend to go FF yet.
 

Apr 10, 2006
73
0
0
Singapore
#6
my 40d comes with a EFS 18-55 IS lense. how is sharpness of this lens compared to 16-35 f/2.8L USM II? worth to change?

i'm actually looking for a good walk around lense for my 40d... target will be people and architecture and some landscape..
unless the resolution and larger aperture (no point mentioned weather-sealing) is what you need, the 16-35 mm has a smaller focal range and burns a hole in the pocket (unless you are intending to upgrade to larger sensor sizes eventually) ...
 

zzyzx

New Member
Aug 25, 2007
784
0
0
#8
got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead. dunno why my image become much sharper.. :dunno:
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#10
got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM instead. dunno why my image become much sharper.. :dunno:
Many possible reasons:

1) f/2.8 focuses better
2) scene / conditions are different
3) bad copy of 18-55 IS
4) end user perception - image with lens costing $1k more had better look sharper

If you feel up to it, set up controlled conditions (tripod, MLU, static subject, artificial light, multiple apertures) and do an exhaustive comparison.

Or just be happy with new lens and go out and shoot something.
 

danielskl

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
378
0
0
#12
Actually it work in this way, higher price higher quality.. And Good things don come cheap, cheap things don come good all the time..

So its no doubt that yr new lens can get sharper images. ;)
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#13
Honestly, if you know what are doing, you can actually get very impressive results with the 18-55 IS.

I was shooting on my friend's (alternatve) 40D with the 18-55 IS, and I don't think you'd come across a much sharper lens at that price point.


No sharpening, B&W conversion and Levels in Photoshop. Vignetting and border added in Photoshop.​


(Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#14
(Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)
Darn, it looks so familiar, I just can't recall where I saw it before :bsmilie:

Can't tell much about sharpness from that though without a 100% crop, but I believe you. Most lenses, under right conditions can produce sharp photos, and from all reports the 18-55 IS is no slouch.
 

Dec 30, 2006
1,480
0
0
#16
Honestly, if you know what are doing, you can actually get very impressive results with the 18-55 IS.

I was shooting on my friend's (alternatve) 40D with the 18-55 IS, and I don't think you'd come across a much sharper lens at that price point.


No sharpening, B&W conversion and Levels in Photoshop. Vignetting and border added in Photoshop.​


(Hehe I know this photo is pretty widespread on CS already. It's useful in convincing everyone that the 18-55 IS is definitely not a sloppy lens.)
Heh, it's everywhere! And taken with my 40D + 18-55 IS, though not with my hands.. :p

The 18-55 IS is indeed a good lens, even when you compare it against it's big brother Ls. Sure it flares and the build quality is poor but the IQ really makes up for it. Continue to play with it until you really need to step up. Also, the 16-35 is not really a walkaround lens IMO, more of a kit with a tele zoom combined.

Samuel
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#17
Darn, it looks so familiar, I just can't recall where I saw it before :bsmilie:

Can't tell much about sharpness from that though without a 100% crop, but I believe you. Most lenses, under right conditions can produce sharp photos, and from all reports the 18-55 IS is no slouch.
Doesn't anyone get it...If you are shooting a 10MP photo, and you view it at 100%, don't tell me you are going to make a print that huge so that you can peep at it from 30cm to tell pixel for pixel whether it is sharp.

Viewing at 100% is not a test for sharpness; it is simply put, not the best thing to do with your time.
 

lennyl

New Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,520
0
0
Northern California
#18
Doesn't anyone get it...If you are shooting a 10MP photo, and you view it at 100%, don't tell me you are going to make a print that huge so that you can peep at it from 30cm to tell pixel for pixel whether it is sharp.

Viewing at 100% is not a test for sharpness; it is simply put, not the best thing to do with your time.
I disagree - I have images that look fantastic scaled down to 800 pixels wide, but there is no way I would call them sharp. I didn't say they have to be pixel perfect at 100%, but looking at it scaled down to 4% the # of pixels and saying "look, it's sharp" is hardly convincing.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#19
I disagree - I have images that look fantastic scaled down to 800 pixels wide, but there is no way I would call them sharp. I didn't say they have to be pixel perfect at 100%, but looking at it scaled down to 4% the # of pixels and saying "look, it's sharp" is hardly convincing.
How large do you print? 30"x20"?
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#20
You get what you pay for.

But to TRULY appreciate the upgrade, you need to understand first hand, what your cheaper kit lens can do, and can't. If you're relatively inexperienced, use your kit lens andd push it as far as it will go. Sharpness isn't everything. Some famous photographer once said that there's nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a blur idea.

Getting an L-lens as a newbie, well there's nothing wrong with that. It's just like learning how to drive in a Ferrari, that's all.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom