Upgrade to Windows 7 for $49 and 99$!

The Lightroom 2 image seems to be rendering more detail, while DPP offers a softer look to the float ring and people on the pier. This could be due to more agressive noise reduction in DPP with the 50D.

The 17-40 is greatly improved on the long end after the micro adjust, although it seems to have lost just a touch compared to the previous test at 17 and 19mm. In fact, it is so improved that it surpasses the 18-55 IS from 30-40mm. The 18-55 IS still seems superior at the corners around 35mm, but the 17-40 retakes the sharpness crown at the center.

After auto focus micro adjust of +9, the 17-40L delivers the all around superior performance. A very good example of the color cast from the 18-55 IS is available in the first two pictures. The L jut does an amazing job with color balance there – neutral with no cast. The garage door and driveway have an almost pink/purple cast on the 18-55 IS. For the money, the 18-55 IS is a great performer, holding it’s own with the 17-40L in sharpness, but not in color. Also, the IS on the 18-55 increases its usability. You can’t beat it for the money.

There has been a lot of debate about the new 18-55 IS catching up to and surpassing the 17-40L in image quality. Well, I decided to see for myself.  Based on the 18-55 IS hype, I was certain that my 17-40L was long in the tooth and no longer fashionable, being beat by a $150 kit lens of the future. Well, let’s just say the results are interesting.

Everything was shot using a tripod and remote shutter release on a Canon 50D. Click the thumbnails for larger versions.

Test # 1

Test # 2

Test # 3

We are talking about a $700 lens in the 17-40L, and a $150 lens in the 18-55 IS. That’s quite a difference in cost.

There are a couple things I realized when looking at these tests. First, the 17-40L soundly whips the 18-55 IS from 17mm to 24 mm. It has an almost surgical contrast. Secondly, the 18-55 IS absolutely trounces the 17-40 L from 30mm on. It’s an embarrassment in all honesty. The performance from 30mm to 40mm on the 17-40 is  a very big issue in this comparison. A lens of this cost should perform much better across the range.  In terms of 17-24, the 17-40 just delivers a far more pleasing image even if 100% borders aren’t that hot. Also, the 17-40 just does color MUCH better than the 18-55 IS from 17-30mm. The 18-55 IS delivers a darker, mushier color look and a root beer, almost purple cast to all its images. Also, I would say the colors on the 18-55 IS are not really accurate. It ads a bluish/purple cast, or darker cast to some of the textures (see the brown wooden siding in the backyard test). I can tell you that is not the right color of which the 18-55 is representing.

That said, the 18-55 IS really surprised me. It’s light, has IS, and has better range than the 17-40L. The 17-40L has superior build quality and USM, but needs to be chained to a tripod because it’s slow as a dog (especially with a circular polarizer). The only thing I can conclude from this is “toss up”. If you are looking for razor micro contast and freakish color from 17-24mm(nature landscapes, urban landscapes), the 17-40 is a great lens. If you are looking for outstanding resolution and pop from 30mm to 45mm, and anice, versatile walkaround with IS, the 18-55 IS is the lens for you.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the overall look to the image – not the 100% crops. I plan to post the full unprocessed images from each lens shortly.
Here are the resized full scenes:

All of those are unprocessed and resized images from the originals. Finally, here’s a condensed example of the color cast problem that the 18-55 IS brings to the table:

Note how the wood trim on the 18-55 crop has a weird purple/blueish tint. That is not how the wood and paint actually looks. The 17-40 is representing the real color. It goes to show that there is much more to image quality than sharpness.  That cast would not be easy to remove in Photoshop.  But the final say is up to you.   Clearly, the 18-55 IS has a huge cost advantage.

Edit:

Someone brought up a very good point in that perhaps the color advantage for the 17-40 was because of the 18-55 IS slightly underexposing. This would give it that darker, purple cast. I did some exposure tests and these are the results (click them for the large version):

After looking at the exposure results, it’s clear the 17-40L color advantage is not because of exposure. It just gets the actual real color of the scene. This *may* not hold up past 30mm though, and it will be tested soon.

Canon Instant Rebates: May 3 – July 11, 09

Canon lenses:

EF 200mm f/2L IS USM – $500
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM – $130
EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS USM – $200
EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS USM – $100
EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM – $100
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM – $100
EF 24–70mm f/2.8L USM – $80
EF 70–200mm f/4L IS USM – $75
EF-S 17–55mm f/2.8 IS USM – $70
EF-S 10–22mm f/3.5–4.5 USM – $50
EF 17–40mm f/4L USM – $50
EF 70–200mm f/4L USM – $40
EF-S 17–85mm f/4–5.6 IS USM – $50
EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM – $35
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 MACRO USM – $30
EF 28–200mm f/3.5–5.6 USM – $30
EF 28–105mm f/3.5–4.5 II USM – $20
EF-S 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6 IS – $15
Flash Units
SPEEDLITE 580EX II – $50
SPEEDLITE 430EX II – $30
SPEEDLITE 220EX – $30
MACRO TWIN LITE MT-24EX – $70
MACRO RING LITE MR-14EX – $50


bodies

Canon cameras:
EOS 50D Kit + EF-S 18–200mm f/3.5–5.6 IS – $300
EOS 50D EF-S 18–200mm IS Kit – $300
EOS 50D EF 28–135mm IS Kit + EF-S 18–200mm f/3.5–5.6 IS – $300
EOS 50D Kit + EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS USM – $150
EOS 50D EF 28–135mm IS Kit + EF 70–300mm f/4–5.6 IS USM – $150
EOS Rebel XSi EF-S 18–55mm IS Kit (B) + EF-S 55–250mm f/4–5.6 IS – $200
EOS Rebel XSi EF-S 18–55mm IS Kit (S) + EF-S 55–250mm f/4–5.6 IS – $200
EOS Rebel XS EF-S 18–55mm IS Kit (B) + EF 75–300mm f/4.5–5.6 III – $100
EOS Rebel XS EF-S 18–55mm IS Kit (S) + EF 75–300mm f/4.5–5.6 III – $100

Link

Amazon is taking pre orders now for both lenses!

Are those likely? Who knows, but that’s what is being discussed around the net.

These are both non-processed screen grabs from Lightroom 2.2. Note how the library mode just looks far superior in terms of detail and overall sharpness. Any particular reason for this?

Amazon camera sale