December 11, 2016, 01:00:56 AM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark  (Read 22901 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2014, 01:46:01 PM »
I'm willing to bet that the lighting level they choose to use is for a specific purpose and not just some randomly picked number.

For example, maybe it is easier for them to detect the difference between f-stop and t-stop at that level. Maybe there is less internal reflections and flaring at that level. And so on. Whilst we don't know why they chose that level of illumination, I'd wager that it isn't an arbitrary choice.
Of course it's not a randomly picked number, and they state why they picked it:  "...we choose the scene illumination to be 150 lux and the exposure time 1/60s. Such conditions were chosen as we believe low-light performance is particularly important for today’s photography and it is also important for photographers to know how well lenses perform at widest aperture."  The point is that choosing a low level of illumination like that introduces a bias into their scores, and it's a non-obvious bias given the way the scores are presented (yes, you can find out about the 150 lux testing, but you have to look for it). 

Even the explanation for their bias is applied in a biased (and undisclosed) manner.  They state that, "...it is also important for photographers to know how well lenses perform at widest aperture," and the implication is that since the 50/1.8 scores higher than the 600/4, for example, the 50/1.8 performs better at f/1.8 than the 600/4 at f/4.

It is entirely possible that a 50/1.8 can reproduce an image better than a 600mm lens. Look at all of the noise people have made about Zeis's 55mm recent announcement. Just because a lens is bigger or heavier or has a longer focal length doesn't mean it is better at reproducing an image.
According to DxO's own data, the 600 II is sharper, has less distortion, less vignetting, and less chromatic aberration.  The 600/4 also loses less light relative to it's f/number than the 50/1.8, i.e. the 600's max T-stop is closer to it's max f/stop than is the case for the 50/1.8.  So, on every measure of optical performance except absolute light transmission, the 600 II is a better lens.  But the 50/1.8 gets a better Score.  So…a higher DxO Score is saying that a faster lens is "better" simply because it's faster, as if people are unable to figure that out from the f/1.8 vs. the f/4 spec.  Even people who think they can shoot video with a lens that doesn't have a camera attached to it are probably able to understand that an f/1.8 lens will transmit more light than an f/4 lens, and hopefully don't need DxO's BS to tell them that.   

As for it being, "...entirely possible that a 50/1.8 can reproduce an image better than a 600mm lens," you can easily see how much better the 50/1.8 II at f/1.8 reproduces an image, compared to the 600mm f/4L IS II at f/4.  Just look for yourself::) ::) ::)

Incidentally, according to DxOMark, the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II is:
  • sharper than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
  • has less distortion than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
  • has less vignetting than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4
  • has less chromatic aberration than the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4

…but still, the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 gets a significantly higher score.  Why?  Because it's f/1.4…and in world of DxOMark's BS, that automatically makes it "better". 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2014, 01:46:01 PM »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1618
  • M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2014, 01:52:02 PM »
I've read that it is better to get good glass on a cheaper camera than the cheap glass on an expensive camera.  So now the person who takes that advice is being made fun of?

Both should be bought to *match* each other - the consideration to make is that there are basically two sensor types (ff & crop), but a nearly linear choice of lens quality. The ef type is not always "better" than ef-s and vice versa, and in the tele range it's ef anyway no matter the sensor type. Consider this classic:

Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens

I enjoyed that!  ;)
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | EF: SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 28/2.8 IS, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, 70-300L IS, T28-300 Di VC PZD, Ʃ150-600 DG OS HSM S | E: SY12/2, 35/1.8 OSS, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, SY300/6.3 ED UMC CS

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 20051
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2014, 10:00:19 PM »
...
but still, the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 gets a significantly higher score.  Why?  Because it's f/1.4…and in world of DxOMark's BS, that automatically makes it "better".

Maybe they've aligned their BS scoring to the BS that goes around Internet forums because your comment above is largely how the Internet perceives lenses too!

Maybe.  That must explain all the Internet love for the 50/1.2L, everyone says it's such a great lens.  :o
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2014, 12:41:33 AM »
Maybe.  That must explain all the Internet love for the 50/1.2L, everyone says it's such a great lens.  :o
LOL and I just don't get why my 50L is such crap.  I bought it to take macro photos wide open and it just sucks.  It's almost as bad as the 85L that I bought to cover football games, the 300 2.8 I bought as a compact lightweight travel lens, and the 180 macro I bought to shoot indoor hockey games.  I guess I should've checked DxO's "Use Case Scores" before I bought them  :) ;) :o :) ;) :o.
CPS Score: 111 points

tron

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2879
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2014, 06:41:14 AM »
Maybe.  That must explain all the Internet love for the 50/1.2L, everyone says it's such a great lens.  :o
LOL and I just don't get why my 50L is such crap.  I bought it to take macro photos wide open and it just sucks.  It's almost as bad as the 85L that I bought to cover football games, the 300 2.8 I bought as a compact lightweight travel lens, and the 180 macro I bought to shoot indoor hockey games.  I guess I should've checked DxO's "Use Case Scores" before I bought them  :) ;) :o :) ;) :o.
You forgot the use of your 24mm lens for birding  ;D

Canon1

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2014, 11:00:36 AM »
You forgot the use of your 24mm lens for birding  ;D

I've seen some amazing wide angle bird photography with extremely unique perspectives that include the amazing habitats they live in.

I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images. 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 11:02:08 AM by Canon1 »

tcmatthews

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2014, 01:55:08 PM »

I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images.

Tell me if you take the "wrong" lens and produce "unique images" is it really the "wrong" lens?
7D II, 60D, Rebel XS + some Canon lenses, A7II + Sony + some Sony lenses, OMD EM1,OMD EM5 + some m43 lenses, adapters and Fd and M42 lens.  Sold 6D,Nex6,EOS M1

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2014, 01:55:08 PM »

slclick

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2014, 02:14:33 PM »

I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images.

Tell me if you take the "wrong" lens and produce "unique images" is it really the "wrong" lens?

If a leaf shutter opens in the forest with no one around, does it really take a photograph?
5D3, EOS 3, 16-35 f/4L, 24-70 2.8L ll, 40 Pancake, 50 Art, 100L, 135L, Lensbaby Composer

tcmatthews

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2014, 02:15:18 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.


Ah yes those people who have a cheap entry level Rebel camera with a 17-40L stuck on the end! Yup I agree, unless your "other cameras a FF" and currently out of action you have no excuse! Too cheap to buy a FF camera but has enough to show off with an L lens! (A cheap one at that!) you're foolin no one son!

I've read that it is better to get good glass on a cheaper camera than the cheap glass on an expensive camera.  So now the person who takes that advice is being made fun of?

I am a proponent of using good glass on a cheep camera but it has to make sense.  The 17-40L on a rebel is a waist.  The camera can take much better pictures with a good EF-s lens.  The 17-40L lacks IS it is relatively slow for crop.  If you are going to get a full frame L lens for a crop camera get one of the 24-x lenses, and then buy a Ef-s Ultra wide.   24-x is fine for an outdoor zoom in wide open places.  Save buying the ultra-wide full frame lens for when you buy a full frame camera.

All of the telephoto lens make sense.  So a 70-200L or 70-300L should be on all Rebel users list if they plan on moving to full frame.

But that is just my opinion. 
7D II, 60D, Rebel XS + some Canon lenses, A7II + Sony + some Sony lenses, OMD EM1,OMD EM5 + some m43 lenses, adapters and Fd and M42 lens.  Sold 6D,Nex6,EOS M1

tcmatthews

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2014, 03:39:02 PM »
I have in general been avoiding all DxO Mark threads.  I find the lens reviews at best a comedy of errors at worst egregious miss characterizations.  They sometimes bash lens for flaws of the cameras they are testing it on.  All in in all it is just better to ignore them. 

The only camera they have tested the Sony E10-18f4 on is the Nex7.  Spent a huge amount of time complaining of soft corners and color fringing.  The Nex7 has a well documented problem with wide angle lens because of a micro-lens design flaw and the never once mention that.  They have also never bothered to test it on any other Sony Nex cameras.

The Sigma DN 19 and DN 30 have only been reviewed on the absolute worst m43 camera.  They have terrible scores but are fantastic lens for the price. 

Last time I checked the Tamron 28-75 had higher marks in Both the Sony and Nikon mount. 
7D II, 60D, Rebel XS + some Canon lenses, A7II + Sony + some Sony lenses, OMD EM1,OMD EM5 + some m43 lenses, adapters and Fd and M42 lens.  Sold 6D,Nex6,EOS M1

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1618
  • M.R.S. Fotografie www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2014, 03:49:32 PM »
If you are going to get a full frame L lens for a crop camera get one of the 24-x lenses, and then buy a Ef-s Ultra wide.   24-x is fine for an outdoor zoom in wide open places.  Save buying the ultra-wide full frame lens for when you buy a full frame camera.

That makes sense, and incidentally is exactly what I did when I decided to buy glass to prepare for the move to full frame later on. I had the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DX at the time, a bombproof piece of kit that was!
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 04:12:58 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | EF: SY14/2.8, V20/3.5, 28/2.8 IS, Ʃ35/1.4, 50/1.8, Ʃ50/1.4 EX, 100/2.8L IS Macro, 16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 2.0x III, 70-300L IS, T28-300 Di VC PZD, Ʃ150-600 DG OS HSM S | E: SY12/2, 35/1.8 OSS, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, SY300/6.3 ED UMC CS

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6329
  • Canon Pride.
    • Der Tierfotograf
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2014, 04:02:55 PM »
If you are going to get a full frame L lens for a crop camera get one of the 24-x lenses, and then buy a Ef-s Ultra wide.   24-x is fine for an outdoor zoom in wide open places.  Save buying the ultra-wide full frame lens for when you buy a full frame camera.
That makes sense, and incidentally is exactly what I did when I decided to but glass to prepare for the move to full frame later on. I had the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DX at the time, a bombproof piece of kit that was!

I also agree - the important thing is that the 17-40L on crop is "good enough" to be very usable, so you can either get it before moving to ff or dual-use it on crop & ff.

Canon1

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2014, 06:05:07 PM »

I get your jokes... and they are funny... but sometimes taking the "wrong" lens with you can help you to produce some really unique images.

Tell me if you take the "wrong" lens and produce "unique images" is it really the "wrong" lens?

You catch on quick.   ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2014, 06:05:07 PM »