My question was more about IQ (sharpness). Are they same? Which is beter. I know about angles,fast aparture, zoom range, built quality - which is better on L lenses.
Because on the test looks for me nearly same resoults from 18-55 vs. 17-55(which is cheap standart).
I know adventage of IS, fast aparture. But if the IQ is not good is waisting money. Like Nikon DSLR D200 great body but IQ worst like 30D ISO 400 and high(more noisy and noise reduction causes lost of details).
On the another web-tests looks like a sharp lens but here isn`t.
for example SLR Gear:
This lens is decently sharp wide open, and wonderfully sharp at f/4, across its entire focal length range.
Only think why i looking for aparture 2.8 is that sometimes you need more light (no tripod, cant use flash)and the another one, Aparture 2,8 on 40D enable (Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.
If the optical quality better on 24-105 I`ll be only happy, wide zoom nearly like on compact cameras and tele is little bit longer about 168. Much more sealed and have got better build quality.
My last question is about image sharpnes on 30D and 40D. 30D was pretty sharp (JPEG) in the test like 5D(if not better) but smaler pictures because 8Mpix vs. 12.
But 40D looks more blured straight from camera (JPEG). Is because they use noise reduction (more pixels more noise) or just dont use same level of sharpness.
And sorry about my english