ef-s 17-55 2.8 usm or 17-40 l f4

[philbyuk]

was all set to get the 17-40 f4 L then up pops the new ef-s is 17-55 2.8
now this has really thrown me. ok the L lens should be sharper but by how much , also like the faster aperture of the 17-55 and IS,and does anyone have any idea on the price/availability(when will it be on the shelves in britain) of the 17-55?

decisions decisions

[Tau]

i've found the 17-40 only shines at f/5.6 ish and above....below that its a bit soft. at least mine is anyway.

[cactusclay]

Wow, that didn't take long and the 17-55 isn't even out yet.:D I think I would wait and see some of the tests, before making a decision, on the other hand if you are willing to pay 1200 bucks, there may be something better to compare, like 24-105 or 24-70. You have 18-24 covered with your kit lens and I honestly can't see much if any image quality difference in that range, with the L and the kit lens.

[philbyuk]

yes looked at the 24-40 and 24-105 both look exceptonal lenses though i need a slightly wider lens(photograph canal barges)only got the kit lens at moment for the angle i need and the 17-40 seems to be the ideal range i need

[In2Photos]

Wait for some of the reviews to make your decision.

[nitsch]

Cactus is right, we'll have to wait and see some independent tests first, but on paper at least it looks like a great lens. I've been tempted by the 17-40 before but on balance decided to keep my 17-85 as optical performance is very similar but the extra range and IS of the 17-85 swung it for me over the better build but smaller focal range/lack of IS of the 17-40. The 17-55 on the other hand looks like a cracker, decent range, IS, constant f2.8 and optically a very high performer, only time will tell on the optical performance side but if it lives up to expectations I will definately be replacing my 17-85 with one. However this isn't going to happen until May at the very earliest and UK price (as far as I'm aware) has not been announced but suffice to say it's going to be more than the 17-40. I'd guess at around £750 - £800, but it's just a guess.

[cactusclay]

A cheap solution, would be to get a lens hood for the kit lens. You may want to go and take some test shots at a store with a 17-40 and the kit lens. My experiece was that I couldn't see the L difference at the wide end. The only problem with the kit lens is that it flares easily, but a hood helps with that. Good luck.

[kaitanium]

yes i agree, wait for it to be released first before spending time to make your decision. youre not going to get any accurate info right now to sway your decision other than perhaps price

[piku]

I heard from a lil birdie just right now about this damn lens. I recently even cover my 17-35 range w/ the tamron from eBay. Damn it. What to do ... what to do... (sell the 28-75 and 17-35???)

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos30d/sample/sample1.html

[ChopstickHero]

here's an initial review of it: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


do you guys think IS is even necessary for a lens with such a short focal length and fast 2.8 aperture?

[rklepper]

was all set to get the 17-40 f4 L then up pops the new ef-s is 17-55 2.8
now this has really thrown me. ok the L lens should be sharper but by how much , also like the faster aperture of the 17-55 and IS,and does anyone have any idea on the price/availability(when will it be on the shelves in britain) of the 17-55?

decisions decisions

Noone knows anything about the sharpness or even useability of this lens.

[Billginthekeys]

i was just thinking the same thing, and decided to go with the 17-40, read my reasons in this thread
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140479

[jylitalo]

Wow, that didn't take long and the 17-55 isn't even out yet.:D I think I would wait and see some of the tests, before making a decision, on the other hand if you are willing to pay 1200 bucks, there may be something better to compare, like 24-105 or 24-70. You have 18-24 covered with your kit lens and I honestly can't see much if any image quality difference in that range, with the L and the kit lens.

I've found that I take 60-62% of my images with 17-40/4L, which raises my interest for zooms in 17-55mm focal range.
In winter scenes (at least above tree level in alps) falls short on tele end and in events f4 is limiting factor. One solution for this problem would be Tamron's 28-75/2.8, but if I can have it "all" in one lens (17-55/2.8 IS) at cheaper price than those two combined, then it just might be worth it to buy EF-S lens.
Anyway, I'll be waiting to see how Canon's 17-55/2.8 IS and Tamron's new 17-50/2.8 will perform in people's tests, before I buy f2.8 zoom and put my 17-40/4L for sale. With this in mind, I will probably have to wait until August/September timeframe. If I have to make my mind before that (due to some event, where I need faster lens ,etc.), I'll probably go for two lens solution (17-40/4L + 28-75/2.8).

[motion_projekt]

i say if youre gonna dis out the 1200USD for the 17-55 you should just buy the 16-35. Its L Glass, and shoot its EF...so if you do go full frame...you got one monster of a lens.

[nitsch]

i say if youre gonna dis out the 1200USD for the 17-55 you should just buy the 16-35. Its L Glass, and shoot its EF...so if you do go full frame...you got one monster of a lens.

Check the Photozone resolution charts for both lenses. The performance of the 17-55, plus the fact it has IS, plus the fact it has an extra 20mm on the long end make it a no brainer IMHO for a crop body user over the 16-35. If I ever switched to full frame I would be confident of being able to sell any EF-S lenses in my bag at minimal loss on Ebay...

[Lightstream]

A "maybe" full frame vs "most certainly heck yes from the very first shot" use of IS..

I'll take IS ;)

[narlus]

i was very intrigued by this lens when it was announced, but just couldn't wait for the release (and the price is a bit rich for me too); maybe i'll grab one after 6-8 months time.

[LightRules]

The new 17-55IS is truly in a class by itself. There is simply nothing like it, period.

[Lightstream]

A "maybe" full frame vs "most certainly heck yes from the very first shot" use of IS..

I'll take IS ;)
*smacks self*

This must be retribution for supporting EF-S. There was no such thing as having to worry about full frame on the horizon yesterday for me. Today there is. :o

Fortunately fStopJojo's sig has just reminded me that it is possible to, uhh, "modify" a 17-85. Must think about doing that.

[motion_projekt]

*smacks self*

This must be retribution for supporting EF-S. There was no such thing as having to worry about full frame on the horizon yesterday for me. Today there is. :o

Fortunately fStopJojo's sig has just reminded me that it is possible to, uhh, "modify" a 17-85. Must think about doing that.

so you're saying since you'd take apart the 1785IS you'd do the same to the 1755IS? Thats crazzzzzy...lol. I still like the 16-35 better...esp if you have the 2470L and the 70200ISL...it'd make more sense...

[PhilipJohnBasile]

Definitely the IS

[dockie]

i just bought the lens, and i love it! i believe it is truly a league of its own. for one it is IS and also, it is 2.8. As for the 16-35, i think it falls short on the long end and is without IS. the built is definitely not L, but sturdy enough. for the price it should have at least better build and weatherproofing, although i got it at promo price of just about $1000. happy!

[Lightstream]

so you're saying since you'd take apart the 1785IS you'd do the same to the 1755IS? Thats crazzzzzy...lol. I still like the 16-35 better...esp if you have the 2470L and the 70200ISL...it'd make more sense...

I chickened out, I decided to buy the 24-105, therefore eliminating the need to perform surgery on either EF-S lens to 'adapt' it to my 5D. :mrgreen:

As for a decision between the EF-S 17-55 and EF 17-40, this decision's quite straightforward. Approximately 2X the cost buys one an image stabilizer (tremendously useful), and a larger aperture (always useful) at the cost of well, the cost. ;) and the 17-55 is not full frame compatible. If your budget permits, go for it.