17-40 4L vs 17-55 2.8

[akoyikalima]

I need some opinion on what would be a smarter buy APS-C standard zoom lens. How do the 17-40 4L and 17-55 2.8 compare with each other?

Both are USM. The 17-40L offers better construction and sealing but the 17-55 has a wider max aperture and IS (not mention a 15mm longer). The price diff is quite big with the 17-55 being more expensive.

Are the extra bucks worth the difference?

Im also not sure if quality of pictures vary that much. Based on some reviews iv read, both churn out quality pics.

By the way, the only lens i have are the kit lens and a 50 1.8. An 85 1.8 is also on its way. I shoot mostly indoors but I also visit and shoot beaches about 3-4 times a year.

[JNunn]

I only have the 17-40L and haven't had any experience with the 17-55. However, from what I hear, the 17-55 is superior (speed, IQ, etc), although my 17-40L is very sharp at all FL.

[elader]

JNunn and I are in the same position. I love my 17-40L but have no doubt that the IS and extra f/stop come in huge handiness for available light indoors. Is it worth the extra cash? If you shoot weddings, yup. Outdoors, nah. You dont need IS on a 17-40 outdoors or indoors with flash.

[nicksan]

F/4 indoors with no tripod/flash...good luck!
85 1.8 will definitely work for that though...

Outdoors not so much of a big deal I think although IS is ALWAYS a nice thing to have.

I think the 17-55 is known to be a sharper lens than the 17-40 in general. I think the features of the 17-55 will make it shine indoors. Again, outdoors, a lot of lenses can "churn out" good images.

Is the 17-55 worth $500 - $600 more? If you need good low-light performing ZOOM, constant f/2.8 and IS, well then, yes.

But it depends on how badly you want those features...


I need some opinion on what would be a smarter buy APS-C standard zoom lens. How do the 17-40 4L and 17-55 2.8 compare with each other?

Both are USM. The 17-40L offers better construction and sealing but the 17-55 has a wider max aperture and IS (not mention a 15mm longer). The price diff is quite big with the 17-55 being more expensive.

Are the extra bucks worth the difference?

Im also not sure if quality of pictures vary that much. Based on some reviews iv read, both churn out quality pics.

By the way, the only lens i have are the kit lens and a 50 1.8. An 85 1.8 is also on its way. I shoot mostly indoors but I also visit and shoot beaches about 3-4 times a year.

[billh101]

I have the 17-40 and recently got the 17-55. It depends what you are going to shoot, really. Landscape = get the 17-40. Anything else = go for the 17-55. The 17-40 isn't long enough for a walk around lens, in my opinion. It's not fast enough for indoors without a flash. And once you try out the IS, you'll never go back. Sure, the 17-40 is an L and is built a little better, but the 17-55 isn't bad build and is sharper. They're both good lenses, but for one lens that will do it all, it's hard to beat the 17-55 2.8 IS.

[JimAskew]

I have no experience with the 17-40MM EF L. I can tell you that I use my 17-55MM EF-S IS all the time both indoors and out. It is a superb performer and equals the IQ of my 24-70MM EF L and offers IS as a bonus. Of all my lenses it gets by far the most use.

[constrict]

I have no experience with the 17-40MM EF L. I can tell you that I use my 17-55MM EF-S IS all the time both indoors and out. It is a superb performer and equals the IQ of my 24-70MM EF L and offers IS as a bonus. Of all my lenses it gets by far the most use.

I chose the 17-55, you can see most of my work which is done with the 17-55 in my deviant art gallery or myspace.

I have seen way more impressive landscape work with the 17-40 though.

It all depends on what you need and if you often shoot in lowlight without a tripod.

[SuzyView]

I agree that the 17-40 is too wide for a walk around in general. In a national park, it's great. I've been using my 24-70 for walk around, but it is heavy and gets bumped a lot. Depending on what you shoot, how often you'd use the wide part, the 17-55 or 24-70 may be a better choice if indoor shooting is more than 50% of what you do.

[Collin85]

akoyikalima,

I've got a 17-55 on order which should be coming in a few days.

I already own a 17-40L, and I think it's a pretty good landscape lens. My copy isn't particularly sharp at f/4, but it's very decent when stopped down to f/5.6. The construction is excellent (typical of an L series lens), and the front doesn't extend during zooming. The ring-type USM provides fast, but most importantly (in my opinion) very QUIET AF.

But to be quite honest, you've gotta take a very close look at what types of situations you're gonna be in, and don't skimp thinking you'll necessarily be able to compromise for the shortfalls of the 17-40L at all times. I chose the 17-40L because it's quite a bit cheaper here compared to the 17-55. It's obviously f/4, but I assured myself that I rarely use f/4 anyway and whenever I need f/2.8 I can usually get by with my 580EX. Well, I ran into situations where I really did need f/2.8. I also assured myself that I wouldn't miss IS that much, since I tend bring tripods for landscapes. But after getting the lens, I did certainly run into situations where IS really could of helped. Finally, I ran into situations where I wish I could of just zoomed in a LITTLE more. Now this isn't to say my 17-40L has been a complete dissappointment, but if I had my chance again, I would of gone for the 17-55 (even though it would of cost me nearly twice as much). Infact, as I mentioned before, I've already put one on order.

Take a close look at what your needs will be, and then finalise your decision.

Good luck,
Collin

[malcolmp]

As a general purpose lens the 17-55 is fantastic: sharp, opens wide, great for indoors, lots of keepers, amazing for handheld night shots with the IS. The 17-40 is a lighter, studier, weather sealed (with filter) and handles flaring a bit better than the 17-55 making it better for landscapes/hiking.

If you can afford the 17-55 go for it, it's worth the money, you'll use it a lot and get great shots. f/4 often won't cut it indoors without a flash (yuk). Oh, 17-55 wont work on a full frame camera if you ever need that.

Malcolm

[samnz]

Are the extra bucks worth the difference?



Every Penny, Dime, Cent and Euro!

15mm extra reach (better for people portraits too).

Image Stabiliser works a dream

And of course - f2.8. Shallow depth of field with smooth bokeh, fast and useable even @ 17mm

Alternatively 17-40L + 50 f1.4 make a nice pair for the same money - changing lenses doesn't sit well with me.

Sam

[Steiglitz]

The 17-40L will provide better color and contrast. Still, F2.8 is better then F4....get the best of both worlds: 16-35L

[nburwell]

I don't want to be redundant by saying what other members have said about both lenses. So since you say you shoot mostly indoors, I would go with the 17-55 because of both the 2.8 and IS as well. Although you have two good primes in your bag now (50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8) which will definitely do a pretty good job in low light situations. I personally have the 17-40 and love it, but then again, I shoot primarily landscapes with it. Thus, I have no need for the 2.8.

[dgcorner]

Interesting name there - akoyikalima - sounds like "I'm the 5th" in my native language... anyway, you've read what everyone has to say. Now you will need to consider if you're going to go full frame in the future. It is why I chose the 17-40 over the 17-55... though I would have loved to afford the 17-55 and then shift to the 17-40 or the 16-35 when the time came...

[JimAskew]

John,

Not buying an outstanding lens on the chance you may go FF someday is a weak argument in my book. Why deny yourself the pleasure of many great shooting experiences while you wait for the right time to go FF?

If and when I do go to FF I will keep my 30D so that I can always have access to the 10-22MM EF-S and the 17-55MM EF-S IS.

These are simply outstanding lenses and should be considered in any analysis unless you are firmly committed to the FF bodies only.

[LightRules]

The 17-40L will provide better color and contrast

I don't think so.

get the best of both worlds: 16-35L

I don't think so again. The 16-35 lacks IS and the extra 20mm of the EFS. Not comparable at all.

[nicksan]

I agree. I don't think anything will beat the 17-55IS for crop bodies. For those who doubt it, try to find another lens with its feature set.

As for the 16-35, I guess the EF-S equivalent is the 10-22.

16-35 on my 5D...f/2.8...oh my...I have to wipe off my drool!

I don't think so.



I don't think so again. The 16-35 lacks IS and the extra 20mm of the EFS. Not comparable at all.

[timmytimmytimmy]

I don't think anything will beat the 17-55IS for crop bodies.

After hours of research, I think this sums it up best. If you are on a crop body, the 17-55 is the way to go. Yes, I've got the 17-55 on a 350D.

[akoyikalima]

Interesting name there - akoyikalima - sounds like "I'm the 5th" in my native language... anyway, you've read what everyone has to say. Now you will need to consider if you're going to go full frame in the future. It is why I chose the 17-40 over the 17-55... though I would have loved to afford the 17-55 and then shift to the 17-40 or the 16-35 when the time came...


hey John, akoyikalima means exactly that. We probably share the same heritage ;)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like 17-55 gets the nod in this discussion except of course for people shooting mostly landscapes.

One question, can the 17-55 handle conditions at the beach? Not to be used regulalry there, but i have to admit that i always take along my cam whenever I take a break 3-5 times a year.

Please keep your comments coming.

[Collin85]

The 17-40L will provide better color and contrast. Still, F2.8 is better then F4....get the best of both worlds: 16-35L

No offence, but that's the worst advice I've heard for awhile.

Many already dispute the benefits of the 17-55 in regards to it's hefty price. But then you offer a 16-35 which costs even more and doesn't have IS. Unless he's literally got cash oozing out of his pockets (at which he'd just choose the 17-55 of course, since this 17-40 vs. 17-55 debate arguably comes mostly down to price), I think if he wanted a great f/2.8 lens (without IS), he'd get a erm.. slightly better deal paying 4-5 times less with a 17-50 Tamron.

Regards,

[ScottE]

The 17-40L will provide better color and contrast. Still, F2.8 is better then F4....get the best of both worlds: 16-35L

There must be something wrong with your 17-55.

I have both the 17-55 and the 17-40 and don't find there is any difference in colour in contrast. The 17-55 has slightly better resolution.

The only reason I keep my 17-40 is because the 17-55 won't fit on the D60 or EOS 3. Sooner or later I will replace the D60 with an EF-S camera for backup and come to the reallization that I am not going to shoot film any more.

[ijohnson]

For what I've used the 17-40 for I've never needed any more light. It spends a lot of time on a tripod anyway.

[h0rde]

I thought I had posted in this thread before but it must have been one of those other 17-40 vs. 17-55 threads :) I don't think there's any reason for an APS-C body owner to buy the 17-40 instead of the 17-55. I was shooting outside the other day and it was completely overcast, and i had no problem taking pics with a C-PL filter at ISO 100. I can hand-hold reliably at 1/8 second...that's just too useful to ignore. The 17-55 is the lens for crop-body owners.

[ed rader]

I thought I had posted in this thread before but it must have been one of those other 17-40 vs. 17-55 threads :) I don't think there's any reason for an APS-C body owner to buy the 17-40 instead of the 17-55. I was shooting outside the other day and it was completely overcast, and i had no problem taking pics with a C-PL filter at ISO 100. I can hand-hold reliably at 1/8 second...that's just too useful to ignore. The 17-55 is the lens for crop-body owners.

how about price? there is about a $400 difference. if cost were the same i might agree with you.

ed rader

[fi20100]

I’ve read in many places that the 17-55 is very prone to flare. Does the hood a good job controlling flare or does one need to be extremely careful of how you shoot not to get flare?

[billh101]

[QUOTE=fi20100;2554707]I’ve read in many places that the 17-55 is very prone to flare. QUOTE]

From my experience, I don't think flare is any worse than my 17-40. I've had some flare with both of them. But, it's something that I work around when I am out shooting. I don't have the hood for my 17-55 yet, but I plan to get one to see how much difference it makes.

[Lester Wareham]

From what I can make out the 17-55 should be sharper than the 17-40 in the centre but probably not in the very corners.

The IS may be an advantage but I found that the IS on the 24-105 was giving diminishing returns at the wide end so I am not sure how effective it will be at the 17-55 focal length.

For me the full frame compatibility was a big consideration so I got the 17-40. I can say mine is extremely sharp and has no problem with AF speed or accuracy.

You might ask what you want the f2.8 for and if that is significant. For me I use f4 zooms and fast primes for when I really need a fast lens.

On the plus side for the 17-55 it is the ideal standard zoom range for the APS-C format.

[LightRules]

From my experience, I don't think flare is any worse than my 17-40. I've had some flare with both of them. But, it's something that I work around when I am out shooting. I don't have the hood for my 17-55 yet, but I plan to get one to see how much difference it makes.

The weakest area of the (otherwise excellent) 1755IS is its flare performance. I found the 1740 to be much better: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/flareshots

[Lester Wareham]

The weakest area of the (otherwise excellent) 1755IS is its flare performance. I found the 1740 to be much better: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/flareshots

I am not sure I would trust comparative completly flare tests done with the sun as the sun moves in the sky but that did look reasonably convincing.

I also found the 24-105 to not be as well controlled as the 17-40 for flare.

[LightRules]

I am not sure I would trust comparative completly flare tests done with the sun as the sun moves in the sky but that did look reasonably convincing.

I also found the 24-105 to not be as well controlled as the 17-40 for flare.

I agree with you Lester; flare testing is hard to do for the precise reason you stated. I will say though that using these lenses at "basically" the same time, popping them on and off repeatedly, looking through the VF, back and forth, it was obvious how good the 1740L was vis-a-vis the others and concerning flare performance. So the images posted in the link are "representative" of what I found, though they certainly aren't perfect.

[Lester Wareham]

I agree with you Lester; flare testing is hard to do for the precise reason you stated. I will say though that using these lenses at "basically" the same time, popping them on and off repeatedly, looking through the VF, back and forth, it was obvious how good the 1740L was vis-a-vis the others and concerning flare performance. So the images posted in the link are "representative" of what I found, though they certainly aren't perfect.

No you did a good job.

Myself I use a calibrated bright light source in doors.

This means I can add filter / no filter without any source movement and subtract the two frames from each other in photoshop to see the difference.

He is a link, see if you like the methodology.
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/index.htm

[LightRules]

He is a link, see if you like the methodology.
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Flare/index.htm

Definitely a better (i.e., more accurate) way to do it being much more controlled. Nice work.

[fi20100]

So does the hood help a lot? :)

[LightRules]

So does the hood help a lot? :)

A hood, especially the one designed for the lens, will certainly help.

[h0rde]

how about price? there is about a $400 difference. if cost were the same i might agree with you.

ed rader

I've learned to save up enough money to buy the lens that I really want, rather than buying the lens that I can afford at the moment. 400$ is a lot of money, but when even the 17-40 costs 600$ it's not that huge a difference...both choices are expensive.

I was tempted by the 17-40 while I was saving for the 17-55. I even looked at the 17-85, figuring I could get a second lens too (50 1.4, maybe a macro) or an external flash for my money. I kept my senses and just saved as long as it took to get my 17-55, the hood, and high quality filters.

Bottom line, if you want the 17-55, save your pennies and buy one. If you buy the 17-40, buy it because you prefer it for whatever reasons (which you'd have to explain to me,) not because it's all you can afford at the moment. Settling on glass is bad.

[Lester Wareham]

I've learned to save up enough money to buy the lens that I really want, rather than buying the lens that I can afford at the moment. 400$ is a lot of money, but when even the 17-40 costs 600$ it's not that huge a difference...both choices are expensive.

I was tempted by the 17-40 while I was saving for the 17-55. I even looked at the 17-85, figuring I could get a second lens too (50 1.4, maybe a macro) or an external flash for my money. I kept my senses and just saved as long as it took to get my 17-55, the hood, and high quality filters.

Bottom line, if you want the 17-55, save your pennies and buy one. If you buy the 17-40, buy it because you prefer it for whatever reasons (which you'd have to explain to me,) not because it's all you can afford at the moment. Settling on glass is bad.

That’s the right attitude.

Also look at the whole solution, what lenses you will get in future. Will you stay with APS-C or also use full frame. Think in at least a 5 year time frame.

[fi20100]

I've learned to save up enough money to buy the lens that I really want, rather than buying the lens that I can afford at the moment. 400$ is a lot of money, but when even the 17-40 costs 600$ it's not that huge a difference...both choices are expensive.

I was tempted by the 17-40 while I was saving for the 17-55. I even looked at the 17-85, figuring I could get a second lens too (50 1.4, maybe a macro) or an external flash for my money. I kept my senses and just saved as long as it took to get my 17-55, the hood, and high quality filters.

Bottom line, if you want the 17-55, save your pennies and buy one. If you buy the 17-40, buy it because you prefer it for whatever reasons (which you'd have to explain to me,) not because it's all you can afford at the moment. Settling on glass is bad.

What you're saying is true... looking to upgrade the kitlens in ~6 months... I've been looking at 17-55 and the 17-40... both look great... well, right now I'm in the 17-55 camp again :) 6 months is a loooong time, but I don't think anything else this interesting will come out during that period.

[jedwards]

I used to own the 17-40L and now own the 17-55IS. The 17-40L is a good lens, but as a general purpose lens I found it a bit lacking. The sealing does nothing on a non-sealed body, so don't get caught up with that. I found myself wanting the 17-40 to be a bit longer or wider, and useless indoors without a flash.

The 17-40L had better colors, and is a great landscape lens. I found the hood useless on a crop body, but the lens did not have a bid problem with flare. I find the 17-55 to be only slightly worse, with the hood I have no flare issues at all. The 17-55IS is sharper in general, and IS @f/2.8 you will surprise yourself what you can do hand held.

Regarding full frame vs. crop - personally I have no reason to ever go full frame since I have the 10-22 and 17-55. I've grown used to the way lenses work on crop bodies and see no need to switch to full frame - but everyone is different.

[Steiglitz]

I don't think so.



I don't think so again. The 16-35 lacks IS and the extra 20mm of the EFS. Not comparable at all.


How come you don't think so? Can you expound on this? What qualification do you give your response, and please don't point to a web site review...what personal experience with both lenses can you bring to this?

For a wide-angle lens, the need for IS is almost non-existent, especially for a fast zoom (F2.8). Not many people cannot hold a wide angle zoom steady enough...the IS feature is more useful for much longer reaching lenses. You'll notice that the only Canon lenses that have IS are either slow aperture lenses or tele-lenses.

True the 16-35L is not as long, but it does provide better image quality in overlapping focal lengths, and overlapping apertures. Not even to bring up the better build.

[jedwards]

Steiglitz,

Do you really consider the 16-35 a standard lens?

Also, how did you come the conclusion the 16-35 has "better image quality in overlapping focal lengths"? Just curious as this contradicts most reviews I've read.

[Steiglitz]

The 16-35L is not a standard zoom....I realize the 17-55 is because it reaches to 50mm.

I guess a better comparo is between the 24-70L and the 17-55 IS F2.8...and in this case too, the L wins on all accounts except having less width....in fact, the 24-70L is even better then the 16-35L. Don't get me wrong the 17-55 is a great lens, but it does not have L qualities as some have stated, both in image quality, performance, and build.

If I was a crop user and had no intentions of going FF in the future, then the 17-55 would be a great lens to have.

As for reviews on the net, and even in some mags, often they are plain wrong...I cannot explain why, but this is what I've found....often magazines think there is no such thing as a bad lens....don't want to scare off advertisers? Even Canon's own MTF charts are not based on physical testing, but rather subjective assumptions...why? I can't say, but it stinks if you ask me.

[LightRules]

For a wide-angle lens, the need for IS is almost non-existent, especially for a fast zoom (F2.8). Not many people cannot hold a wide angle zoom steady enough...the IS feature is more useful for much longer reaching lenses

This is totally false and it tells me you've never shot with the 17-55IS. Having IS is a boon for wide angle photography too, not only teles.

You'll notice that the only Canon lenses that have IS are either slow aperture lenses or tele-lenses

Huh? 1755 f2.8 IS.

True the 16-35L is not as long, but it does provide better image quality in overlapping focal lengths, and overlapping apertures

I'd love to see this demonstrated.

[foghorn]

...I'd love to see this demonstrated.
But he can't. He ruled out posting links to review sites.

[LightRules]

But he can't. He ruled out posting links to review sites.

I know :lol:

[Glenn NK]

After hours of research, I think this sums it up best. If you are on a crop body, the 17-55 is the way to go. Yes, I've got the 17-55 on a 350D.


I've done the research too, and you seem to be spot on:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

What's unusual is that even though there were complaints, no one seems to have returned their 17 - 55. I've read quite a few FM lens reviews by users, and even the L series have been returned, so this is quite a feat.

When I bought my 30D in late September, I also bought the 24 - 105, and after reading a lot about this 17 - 55, I'm starting to wonder if I took the right lens.!!!

[Collin85]

For a wide-angle lens, the need for IS is almost non-existent, especially for a fast zoom (F2.:cool:. Not many people cannot hold a wide angle zoom steady enough...the IS feature is more useful for much longer reaching lenses. You'll notice that the only Canon lenses that have IS are either slow aperture lenses or tele-lenses.

That's rubbish, and obviously shows you don't really understand the needs of many.

True the 16-35L is not as long, but it does provide better image quality in overlapping focal lengths, and overlapping apertures. Not even to bring up the better build.

It's now evidently clear you've never used a 17-55 or done much research on it.

I guess a better comparo is between the 24-70L and the 17-55 IS F2.8...and in this case too, the L wins on all accounts except having less width....in fact, the 24-70L is even better then the 16-35L. Don't get me wrong the 17-55 is a great lens, but it does not have L qualities as some have stated, both in image quality, performance, and build.

I think you've got a strong case of the FF-advice & L bias. Your comments makes me think you have minimal experience with APS-C cameras.. typical of someone who suggests the 16-35 when there's the 17-55. You DO know that the 17-55 has L optics right? Right??

How is the 'image quality, performance' a distinctive advantage with the 24-70? Build is the main advantage here.

If I was a crop user and had no intentions of going FF in the future, then the 17-55 would be a great lens to have.

It's evident you're not a crop user.. lol.

As for reviews on the net, and even in some mags, often they are plain wrong...I cannot explain why, but this is what I've found....often magazines think there is no such thing as a bad lens....don't want to scare off advertisers? Even Canon's own MTF charts are not based on physical testing, but rather subjective assumptions...why? I can't say, but it stinks if you ask me.

There's site reviews on the net, and then theres USER reviews. I suggest you have a look at some of them.

Regards,
Collin

[Glenn NK]

As for reviews on the net, and even in some mags, often they are plain wrong...I cannot explain why, but this is what I've found....often magazines think there is no such thing as a bad lens....don't want to scare off advertisers? Even Canon's own MTF charts are not based on physical testing, but rather subjective assumptions...why? I can't say, but it stinks if you ask me.

I certainly agree with you about magazine reviews - I too think they are useless, but when I read the detailed opinions of 100 plus people that actually own and use the lens I'm interested in, I suspect it might be a good source of information.

Let's compare that source to any other source of information for one example:

On FM, there have been 294 reviews by owners to date on the 24 - 105L; there aren't that many users on this forum that have that lens - at least not that have actually sat down and written something specific, or will at some time in the future.

I don't have the resources to test everything extensively before purchase; I need to narrow my choice down to the most probable best bet.

[JimAskew]

I certainly agree with you about magazine reviews - I too think they are useless, but when I read the detailed opinions of 100 plus people that actually own and use the lens I'm interested in, I suspect it might be a good source of information.

Let's compare that source to any other source of information for one example:

On FM, there have been 294 reviews by owners to date on the 24 - 105L; there aren't that many users on this forum that have that lens - at least not that have actually sat down and written something specific, or will at some time in the future.

I don't have the resources to test everything extensively before purchase; I need to narrow my choice down to the most probable best bet.

Glenn,

I just took a quick look at FM as well...interesting findings:
a. 17-55MM EF-S IS had 69 reviews and an overall score of 9.3
b. 17-40MM EF L has 325 reviews and an overall score of 8.9
c. the 28-105MM EF L IS had 294 reviews and an overall score of 8.7

I would think from this feedback that users are pretty much satisfied with all three lenses? One reviewer slammed the 17-55EF-S IS with a rating of "1" because he was mad at the price he had to pay! LOL!

[thebigphil]

Here's my 2 cents, for whatever that is worth to anyone else...

I crawled through the forums trying to decide between the EF-S 17-55, the 24-105L, and the 24-70L.

I wanted a lens to replace my 28-135 IS. My goal was a lens that would allow me to shoot in low light (which is my main issue with the 28-135).

The low light requirement led me to not choose the 24-105L. I ordered the 24-70 and the EF-S 17-55 from Amazon, being that I could send back the one I didn't want.

I played with both for quite a while, under a bunch of conditions. I loved the usability of the 17-55, the IS, and the weight. I almost cried as I sent it back.

The bottom line (for me) was that I needed that extra bit of reach that the 24-70 provided.

Since the original poster was comparing the 17-55 to a 14-40, and thus is interested in the wider end (I assume), then I would heartily endorse the 17-55.

My only potential regret is that Canon might release the 24-70 IS this spring.

-Phil

[h0rde]

What you're saying is true... looking to upgrade the kitlens in ~6 months... I've been looking at 17-55 and the 17-40... both look great... well, right now I'm in the 17-55 camp again :) 6 months is a loooong time, but I don't think anything else this interesting will come out during that period.
Just don't get too tired of waiting and buy something cheap just so you can have new glass. Like I said, it was tempting when I was doing it, and it literally took me months of saving and basically every penny I got for Christmas to buy my 17-55, but it was absolutely worth the wait and the $1,000+ I spent.

[ScottE]

My only potential regret is that Canon might release the 24-70 IS this spring.

I doubt that Canon will bring out an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens. It is not different enough from the EF-S 17-55 to justify.

I hope Canon will bring out something like an EF-S 55-165 f/2.8 IS this spring so that I can stop lugging my 70-200 f/2.8 around. That would answer my need for a longer lens better than the 24-70. If they can make something like a 55-165 with as high quality optics and similar compact construction as the 17-55 I would be sending my VISA number to The Camera Store PDQ (if they don't already have it on record).

[ed rader]

I doubt that Canon will bring out an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens. It is not different enough from the EF-S 17-55 to justify.

I hope Canon will bring out something like an EF-S 55-165 f/2.8 IS this spring so that I can stop lugging my 70-200 f/2.8 around. That would answer my need for a longer lens better than the 24-70. If they can make something like a 55-165 with as high quality optics and similar compact construction as the 17-55 I would be sending my VISA number to The Camera Store PDQ (if they don't already have it on record).

the 24-70L IS would be an EF lens. the FF equivalent to the 17-55. and i think it or something similar is coming.

ed rader

[Glenn NK]

Glenn,

I just took a quick look at FM as well...interesting findings:
a. 17-55MM EF-S IS had 69 reviews and an overall score of 9.3
b. 17-40MM EF L has 325 reviews and an overall score of 8.9
c. the 28-105MM EF L IS had 294 reviews and an overall score of 8.7

I would think from this feedback that users are pretty much satisfied with all three lenses? One reviewer slammed the 17-55EF-S IS with a rating of "1" because he was mad at the price he had to pay! LOL!


Yes, that's an interesting comment, and some might say that is reason not to use the ratings, however, with a very high number of users/owners, the odd over-rating and under-rating won't bias the results to any significant degree whatsoever. I hope people keep that little statistical fact in mind, and not discount how useful these ratings can be, particularly if one takes the time to read them all carefully.

What's also interesting is that the three 70 - 200 mm zooms are the top three ranked Canon zoom lenses.

The primes are generally higher rated, but that's no surprise because the primes cost less, and have always had the IQ edge, although the gap has narrowed in recent years.

The strangest comment (to me) "is not an L glass", when it's obviously not an L lens - duh?:confused:

[fi20100]

Just don't get too tired of waiting and buy something cheap just so you can have new glass. Like I said, it was tempting when I was doing it, and it literally took me months of saving and basically every penny I got for Christmas to buy my 17-55, but it was absolutely worth the wait and the $1,000+ I spent.

No, no worries about that :) Going on a trip to Madeira next summer, and I really want something nice for that trip. I was only using the kit lens last summer when we went to Italy, and I would have loved to have something more suitable for dimmer situations. I would thin the 17-55 would be a super choice for a travel lense, especially when coupled with the 70-200 ;)

[ScottE]

Glenn,

I just took a quick look at FM as well...interesting findings:
a. 17-55MM EF-S IS had 69 reviews and an overall score of 9.3
b. 17-40MM EF L has 325 reviews and an overall score of 8.9
c. the 28-105MM EF L IS had 294 reviews and an overall score of 8.7

I would think from this feedback that users are pretty much satisfied with all three lenses? One reviewer slammed the 17-55EF-S IS with a rating of "1" because he was mad at the price he had to pay! LOL!

Comparing ratings is not much use because they are not compared against any common standard. All these ratings show is that most people who have any of these lenses are very happy with them.

The only ratings that really mean anything for comparison purposes are those done by someone who has both lenses and compares one to the other. Even then, you have to look for a hidden agenda. Some people want to demonstrate that their Sigma is just as good as a Canon L or that their Canon L is just as good as a Canon EF-S and will (unintentionally?) bias their tests or interpret their results to make their prediction come true.

[curiousgeorge]

Even if the 17-55 was the same price as the 17-40 I would still have gone for the 17-40. For the following reasons:

1) Build quality is important for me. I plan to keep the lens for a long time I and I don't want it to degrade over time. The 17-55 is known to have some problems with letting in dust, whereas the 17-40 has very good weathersealing.

2) I don't need IS at all. It adds unecessary bulk and I onsider it a gimick for lenses this wide.

3) I have a 70-200 and have found that, if I need anything more than 40mm then I just switch to my longer lens. I don't miss the 40-70 range.

4) The 17-55 may be a bit sharper, but the 17-40 is sharp enough. After all, everyone applies some USM to their images, don't they?

[Lester Wareham]

I crawled through the forums trying to decide between the EF-S 17-55, the 24-105L, and the 24-70L.

I wanted a lens to replace my 28-135 IS. My goal was a lens that would allow me to shoot in low light (which is my main issue with the 28-135).


Errmm, wouldn’t the low light requirement imply primes?

f2.8 is not that fast.

[ijohnson]

Errmm, woulden't the low light requirement imply primes?

f2.8 is not that fast.

2 stops at the long end is A LOT of light. The IS should make up for it but that wont help if you have kids.

BTW, the 24-105 is not going to solve the problem. It is actually slower at the short end of the zoom range.

Lester is right though. A nice prime, either the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.8 would blow your socks off.

[thebigphil]

Errmm, wouldn’t the low light requirement imply primes?

f2.8 is not that fast.
I agree whole-heartily! I have the 50/1.8, and it certainly gives me the low-light performance I like. The problem is I definately needed the zoom capability.

[thebigphil]

2 stops at the long end is A LOT of light. The IS should make up for it but that wont help if you have kids.

BTW, the 24-105 is not going to solve the problem. It is actually slower at the short end of the zoom range.

Lester is right though. A nice prime, either the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.8 would blow your socks off.
OK. Let me get the 24-70 paid off first:o

Thanks for your input!

[jedwards]

Even if the 17-55 was the same price as the 17-40 I would still have gone for the 17-40. For the following reasons:

1) Build quality is important for me. I plan to keep the lens for a long time I and I don't want it to degrade over time. The 17-55 is known to have some problems with letting in dust, whereas the 17-40 has very good weathersealing.

2) I don't need IS at all. It adds unecessary bulk and I onsider it a gimick for lenses this wide.

3) I have a 70-200 and have found that, if I need anything more than 40mm then I just switch to my longer lens. I don't miss the 40-70 range.

4) The 17-55 may be a bit sharper, but the 17-40 is sharp enough. After all, everyone applies some USM to their images, don't they?


CuriousGeorge:
1) weather sealed lenses are no longer sealed when used with a non-sealed body. Kind of like using an umbrella in a swimming pool. I had dust in my 17-40L when I sold it - It was probably sucked in from the body.
2) I thought the same until I used it. It is nice not needing a tripod in the twilight.
3) Most would not agree with this statement. Personally, I use 40-55 quite often.
4) even with USM, you cannot reproduce missing detail.
5) you forgot to mention that you never need f/2.8 as it is a useless feature you never need on a standard lens. Also, who really uses the additional AF sensors anyway?

Why do people continue to bash this lens? If it is too expensive, just leave it at that. I would love a 300 f/2.8 IS, but the reason I don't have is not related to weight, color, filter cost; it's just too expensive for me to consider - Is that ok?

[Wilt]

The IS may be an advantage but I found that the IS on the 24-105 was giving diminishing returns at the wide end so I am not sure how effective it will be at the 17-55 focal length.

I probably will run a test at 17mm in the next weeks, but here is a result of IS at 55mm. Upper row is without IS, lower row is with IS; left most column is the fastest shutter speed i(1/25) in the test, progressing in -1EV increments to slowest speed (1/6). At the time I was having muscular issues in my back and I was not at my usual level of steadiness, but even so 1/6 with IS was very respectable. Note that in the 800x600 posted image, the 1/25 IS might seem a bit fuzzier than 1/25 no IS, but in the actual photos they are equivalent.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IScomparison3a.jpg

[Lester Wareham]

I probably will run a test at 17mm in the next weeks, but here is a result of IS at 55mm. Upper row is without IS, lower row is with IS; left most column is the fastest shutter speed i(1/25) in the test, progressing in -1EV increments to slowest speed (1/6). At the time I was having muscular issues in my back and I was not at my usual level of steadiness, but even so 1/6 with IS was very respectable. Note that in the 800x600 posted image, the 1/25 IS might seem a bit fuzzier than 1/25 no IS, but in the actual photos they are equivalent.


Interesting. Here are the results for the 24-105 http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm, you have to work your way into the menu structure to see the crops.

What I found was the IS advantage @ 24mm seemed to be dependent on the sharpness standard, decreasing asymptotically as you approach the optical sharpness limit of the lens.

Below the “handhold limit” of 1/24/1.6 sec there was always some advantage with IS, but advantage improved as the shutter speed got slower. A very different result from 105mm.

[Wilt]

Interesting. Here are the results for the 24-105 http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm, you have to work your way into the menu structure to see the crops.

What I found was the IS advantage @ 24mm seemed to be dependent on the sharpness standard, decreasing asymptotically as you approach the optical sharpness limit of the lens.

Below the “handhold limit” of 1/24/1.6 sec there was always some advantage with IS, but advantage improved as the shutter speed got slower. A very different result from 105mm.

Hi Lester, just on seat of pants basis, I would expect the law of diminishing returns grows greater as you zoom wider, since the AOV gets wider in angular terms very rapidly at the wide end than at the long end of FL...the difference in AOV at 15mm vs. 17mm for example.

I originally did the above test because someone thought IS was not beneficial below 70mm, so I wanted to see for myself whethr or not that opinion was backed by empirical data (it wasn't).

[curiousgeorge]

1) weather sealed lenses are no longer sealed when used with a non-sealed body. Kind of like using an umbrella in a swimming pool. I had dust in my 17-40L when I sold it - It was probably sucked in from the body.

I was referring to dust entering from the rotating front element, and I've heard this is the source of a lot of dirt.


2) I thought the same until I used it. It is nice not needing a tripod in the twilight.
To each his own, this is my personal view


3) Most would not agree with this statement. Personally, I use 40-55 quite often.

Again, to each his own.


5) you forgot to mention that you never need f/2.8 as it is a useless feature you never need on a standard lens. Also, who really uses the additional AF sensors anyway?

I personally wouldn't need 2.8 unless shooting portraits indoors, but for that I use my 50mm


Why do people continue to bash this lens? If it is too expensive, just leave it at that. I would love a 300 f/2.8 IS, but the reason I don't have is not related to weight, color, filter cost; it's just too expensive for me to consider - Is that ok?
You've misunderstood me - I'm not bashing the 17-55 at all, just giving my alternative viewpoint as the OP will be looking for some balance in this huge debate!

[rogernoel]

You have convinced me. I ordered the 17-55 from B & H and took a second mortgage on the house. ha ha. It will be the most expensive lens that I have bought. I will use it for some landscape, but generally I use 28-135 lens for that. I really enjoyed the discussion etc. Good luck in your choice. Roger

[aparmley]

How come you don't think so? Can you expound on this? What qualification do you give your response, and please don't point to a web site review...what personal experience with both lenses can you bring to this?

For a wide-angle lens, the need for IS is almost non-existent, especially for a fast zoom (F2.8). Not many people cannot hold a wide angle zoom steady enough...the IS feature is more useful for much longer reaching lenses. You'll notice that the only Canon lenses that have IS are either slow aperture lenses or tele-lenses. . .

Excellent request with the personal experience statement. I assume then, that the comment highlighted in red is derived from personal experience as well then, right?

My personal experience is that I find IS on the 17-55 2.8 extremely useful!;)

[Lester Wareham]

Hi Lester, just on seat of pants basis, I would expect the law of diminishing returns grows greater as you zoom wider, since the AOV gets wider in angular terms very rapidly at the wide end than at the long end of FL...the difference in AOV at 15mm vs. 17mm for example.

I originally did the above test because someone thought IS was not beneficial below 70mm, so I wanted to see for myself whethr or not that opinion was backed by empirical data (it wasn't).

Well that's right. It is nice to see it does seem to be effective on the 17-55.

Rather like you I wondered about the wide end on the 24-105 thus the test. I would like to know how much use the feature is, rather than trust to marketering statements.

The effect could be due to the IS design being optimised for the longer end, as much as a fundamental issue on the wide end. Also it could be to do with the interaction between the vibration spectra of a human handholding and the IS system loop bandwidths; but anyway.

It works to varying degrees. As long as one knows what can be squeezed from it that’s what is important.

[lippy113]

The EF-S 17-55 IS gives you 3 stop advantage over a normal lens ive taken shots with it at 1/4, 1/6, 1 second exposures people go on about the 85mm f1.8 take 3 stops off the f2.8 and what do ya get ????

[ijohnson]

The EF-S 17-55 IS gives you 3 stop advantage over a normal lens ive taken shots with it at 1/4, 1/6, 1 second exposures people go on about the 85mm f1.8 take 3 stops off the f2.8 and what do ya get ????

A lens that is still too slow to capture a breathing subject in most indoor house lighting.

[curiousgeorge]

Another thread has highlighted the issue of light fall off with the 17-55. It looks pretty bad.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266359

The 17-40 is a FF lens so you won't get this.

Worth bearing in mind.

[nicksan]

Light fall-off hasn't been noted as a big issue up to this point. Flare is a thing to consider yes, but not Vignetting...not to that degree!

I had a 17-55. Sold it b/c I bought the 5D.
It was a great lens to have.

Faster glass...and IS on top of that.
There is NO QUESTION this it the more versatile lens.

The 17-55, if memory serves me well, has UD element inside so it is "L" lens like in certain ways.

It is not built that bad...not as good as the L lenses, but not bad.
When I had it, I never used my prime. Never felt the need to.

Both the 17-40 and 17-55 won't stop action indoors in low lighting.

So if that is a must, then I would go with a fast prime. Otherwise, for indoor shooting with slow to no subject movement, you can get absolutely crazy shutter speeds (slow and steady) with the 17-55 IS.

Try that with a F/4 non-IS lens!




Another thread has highlighted the issue of light fall off with the 17-55. It looks pretty bad.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266359

The 17-40 is a FF lens so you won't get this.

Worth bearing in mind.

[Wilt]

Another thread has highlighted the issue of light fall off with the 17-55. It looks pretty bad.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266359

The 17-40 is a FF lens so you won't get this.

Worth bearing in mind.

As is pointed out in that thread, some degree of edge falloff of brightness is a phenomenon long present in 35mm format photos with wide angle lenses. And even though f/2.8 exhibits edge falloff in brightness with the 17-55mm, it permits you to get a photo where you would not have been able to get this with f/4. And, if you did use f/4 for both lenses, the 17-55mm permits you to use IS and therefore have better handheld shots more free from photographer shake than the 17-40mm.

[km4066]

In my case, 2.8 would rarely do the trick indoors. I'm shooting dogs quite often, so IS wouldn't be much of a help there. Over a stop faster primes are fine for me...

17-40 goes well with the full frame...

And the 17-40L is sharp wide open, so with steady hands that's not so bad either. With a bit of luck one can get good results - and that's what photography is mostly of - luck. :p

[Wilt]

The IS may be an advantage but I found that the IS on the 24-105 was giving diminishing returns at the wide end so I am not sure how effective it will be at the 17-55 focal length.

Ok, here is the result of putting the 17-55 at 17mm and shooting without IS (upper row) and with IS (lower row) at 1/25, 1/12, 1/6, and 1/3 sec. shutter speeds. I was especially shakey tonite, as my wife was late coming home (tutoring learning disabled children) and I had the low blood sugar shakes at 8pm!

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/17mmIS.jpg

All the shots are 800x600 crops cut from the original 3504x2336 20D frame. Of course, this example is the result of the pixel reduction for posting purposes. IS clearly proves its value even at the very wide focal length!

(keyword: iscompare)

[ScottE]

I don't think that anyone who has ever used an IS lens has any doubt that it is better.

Now, do the same shots with your camera on a tripod using cable release and mirror lock up and see what sharp really is.

[curiousgeorge]

And, if you did use f/4 for both lenses, the 17-55mm permits you to use IS and therefore have better handheld shots more free from photographer shake than the 17-40mm.
...thus negating the benefit of the wider aperture.

[Wilt]

...thus negating the benefit of the wider aperture.

Why does IS negate the benefit of a wider aperture?...I can use IS to handhold a shot taken at 17mm f/2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/5 far, far, far better than I could handhold a shot at 17mm f/4 without IS using a shutter speed of 1/2 ...I have one EV shake-stopping advantage from shutter speed alone, plus three more EV of shake-stopping advantage gained with the use of IS !

Here's what IS does at 1/6 and 1/3 of a second at 17mm

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2595919&postcount=75

[august23]

Hey sorry to bring this thread back, I don't want to see the heated debate start up again lol. However I read through this entire thread and despite all the good things said about both lenses, one thing caught my attention. You say the 17-55 is not a good lens for landscapes? Why is this?

[Wilt]

Hey sorry to bring this thread back, I don't want to see the heated debate start up again lol. However I read through this entire thread and despite all the good things said about both lenses, one thing caught my attention. You say the 17-55 is not a good lens for landscapes? Why is this?


I see '17-40 is a good landscape lens' but I see only one person jumping to a conclusion 'not 17-55 for landscape'. Are you referring to that??? If so many people saying 'BMW is a great highway car' does not make Mercedes a bad highway car!

I suggest you include specific reference to message numbers (upper right of each message), if you do not know how to quote multiples, so we can rebut or support what was said that caused you to jump to the 'not 17-55 for landscape' question.

[august23]

Yes I'm referring to that one. I completely over-dramticized the entire topic, I apologize. I'm just curious if it is a good landscape lens or not, despite flare/no weather-sealing being apparent issues.

[nicksan]

Why wouldn't the 17-55 make for a good landscape lens and the 17-40 would? That doesn't make any sense unless flare becomes an issue.

The 17-55, from what I have read is most likely more prone to flare than the 17-40.

For "sweeping" landscape stuff, I would choose the 10-22 on a crop body or 16-35 on a FF.



Yes I'm referring to that one. I completely over-dramticized the entire topic, I apologize. I'm just curious if it is a good landscape lens or not, despite flare/no weather-sealing being apparent issues.

[jedwards]

The 17-55IS is an excellent lens for landscapes, and portraits, and museums. I think the point made was the 17-40 was limited to use as a landscape lens. In my case, it was.

I don't find the 17-55IS to have a severe flare issue, but then again I use the lens hood. The 17-55 is very good wide open, and gets better until f/8 or so.

[Wilt]

Yes I'm referring to that one. I completely over-dramticized the entire topic, I apologize. I'm just curious if it is a good landscape lens or not, despite flare/no weather-sealing being apparent issues.

I guess my response to your question is, "What makes a 'not-good landscape lens'?" If I knew that, I might know whether the 17-55 fits that definition!

A generally not-good lens, to me, is one that has high levels of vignetting, high CA, badly distorted shots (pincushion or barrel) , not sharp at the edges and scarcely better in the center. But the 17-55mm fits none of those definitions.

It bothers any lens in dusty circumstance, which is why L lenses have some attempt at better sealing, but they are NOT dust PROOF nor waterproof. Can you put 'dust resistance' on display and have people ooohh over that?! And for the weather sealing, you can get around that simply with a rain hood. It might be a bother to a working pro to shoot from under a hood, but as an amateur I rather doubt you absolutely have to be able to shoot at literally any circumstance. Optical performance should take precedence in a visual art!

[divinemethod]

Guys I need your help,

I have the 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4 on a 400D

I do a lot of walk arounds... But now i am in the lookout for a faster lens for indoor/potraits.. should I

sell the 17-40 and pay the extra for 17-55, or go get a 50mm 1.4?

I am leaning towards selling it because of seeing all the pictures in both forums...

Please let me know if you can help me..

[JimAskew]

Guys I need your help,

I have the 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4 on a 400D

I do a lot of walk arounds... But now i am in the lookout for a faster lens for indoor/potraits.. should I

sell the 17-40 and pay the extra for 17-55, or go get a 50mm 1.4?

I am leaning towards selling it because of seeing all the pictures in both forums...

Please let me know if you can help me..

I have no experience with the 17-40 and 10 months with the 17-55 EF-S IS. IMHO the 17-55 is well worth the investment. I use it to make portriats all the time. It is tack sharp with great color and contrast.
Here is a 100% crop sample of my granddaughter and wife opening Easter eggs yesterday: 580EX Flash, 30D, 17-55MM EF-S IS, 1/60th, F/4 ISO 200, 17MM.

[Lester Wareham]

I would go for the 50/1.4 myself, the IS will make up for the f2.8 but will not help with controlling depth of field.

[Lester Wareham]

I would go for the 50/1.4 myself, the IS will make up for the f2.8 but will not help with controlling depth of field.

[divinemethod]

I would go for the 50/1.4 myself, the IS will make up for the f2.8 but will not help with controlling depth of field.

I understand what you mean... this is such a dilemma, but i definately hate using the 17-40 indoors... on a crop. i bought it hoping ill get enough money to get a 5D within a year. but i think it will take me 2 years at my rate of saving. 2 years of waiting without taking good pictures indoors! nooo!

Selling the 17-40 and buying 17-55,

No need to keep switching lenses
when walking around the zoom will help me compose
IS - i love IS because i have nervous hands.


cons-
not as great bokeh as the 1.4
and not much control over DOF
i will lose value when selling the 17-40
not compatible when i get FF camera (that is if i dooo get a FF)

I need more help!! someone HELP MEE!

[basroil]

seeing as money is a concern, 50 is good, though i do like the 30-35 range indoors.. 35L on a 1.3 or sigma 30 on 1.6 looks pretty nice

[SeanH]

Wow 6 pages. From what I have skimed over it looks like just another case of the L owners thinking any L is god like. Not the case with this match.......and yea I own both. The 17-55 2.8 IS blows the doors off the 17-40L in ever catagory except weight & weather sealing. IMO from what I have seen from the 17-55 2.8 (and shooting with the 17-40 for years) anyone that plans on staying with the 1.6 would be TOTALLY FOOLISH to buy the 17-40. It doesn't hold a candle to the 17-55 in sharpness, and IMO is better with color & contrast.........not to mention the 2.8 & IS........it's a no brainer.

Don't be fooled by these EFS lenses from what I have seen they can hold there own against the L's anyday. As a matter of fact with all the stuff in my sig I am just taking my 30D, 10-22 & 17-55 2.8 on vacation in Maui and I'm sure they will do just great.

I shot this just last night while I was grilling for our Easter dinner, no tripod, I was moving and it was blowing in the wind. Just walked up and snaped it 17-55 @ 55mm F3.5

http://www.pbase.com/blue622/image/76882341.jpg

[divinemethod]

wow Sean, Great job swaying me to fork up the cash for the 17-55...

i decided to sell the 17-40 L and get the 17-55 instead...

[Lester Wareham]

I understand what you mean... this is such a dilemma, but i definately hate using the 17-40 indoors... on a crop. i bought it hoping ill get enough money to get a 5D within a year. but i think it will take me 2 years at my rate of saving. 2 years of waiting without taking good pictures indoors! nooo!

Selling the 17-40 and buying 17-55,

No need to keep switching lenses
when walking around the zoom will help me compose
IS - i love IS because i have nervous hands.


cons-
not as great bokeh as the 1.4
and not much control over DOF
i will lose value when selling the 17-40
not compatible when i get FF camera (that is if i dooo get a FF)

I need more help!! someone HELP MEE!

I think you need to work out your overall policy.

My policy was f4 zooms weight and compactness with a few fast primes for speed and DOF control, an alternative many go for are f2.8 zooms.

Another part of the policy was I must say do not get an EF-S lens where an EF lens exists. The idea being maximum conpatibility between crop an full frame (if I got full frame I would keep the crop camera for some aplications and as a second body).

At the point I made these decisions the 17-55 f2.8 IS did not exist, it sound a very nice lens, if it had I might have built a different system who knows, probably not though.

[curiousgeorge]

I would never sell my 17-40, especially for a bulkier, less well built, dust-sensitive alternative.

As for the 50mm 1.4 - you will really appreciate the extra stop. It's a prime at the end of the day, you can't compare it with a zoom. And it's so nice to have such a compact lightweight lens on after using my bigger lenses.

[Collin85]

I would never sell my 17-40, especially for a bulkier, less well built, dust-sensitive alternative.

Which are totally more important factors than f/2.8, IS and being sharper. I'm an owner of both and I have to say the 17-55 absolutely spanks over the 17-40. And I think you mean dust-sensitive to a small group of people.

[Lester Wareham]

As for the 50mm 1.4 - you will really appreciate the extra stop. It's a prime at the end of the day, you can't compare it with a zoom. And it's so nice to have such a compact lightweight lens on after using my bigger lenses.

It's 2 stops in fact, I have similar feelings.

What ever Canon say I suspect the IS is really only good for 2 stops for equivalent sharpness which is why I say the IS makes up the difference between f1.4 and f2.8.

I think it is more a matter of if you value to DOF control, I think this is paramount for informal use inside where you can't control the backdrop.

[curiousgeorge]

I never said they relate to IQ. Thare are other factors apart from IQ to think about.

I'm not going to get into a "my lens is better than your lens" debate, just giving my opinion.

[curiousgeorge]

I think it is more a matter of if you value to DOF control, I think this is paramount for informal use inside where you can't control the backdrop.

I agree! I love the bokeh from my 1.4 (though I rarely use it wider than 1.8 ).

[Collin85]

I never said they relate to IQ.

Exactly my point. There's no acknowledgement for that, only that it's bulkier, isn't built like an L and that it's [generally] dust-sensitive (which is a fallacy anyway).

Thare are other factors apart from IQ to think about.

Yes, but I think it's fair to infer from your post that those features you labelled are significantly more important than fast, Image Stabilizer and arguably better IQ. Each to their own I guess, since everyone has different needs, but I cannot help but feel a tone of malice for the 17-55 in your post, especially after that dust comment.

Honestly, I probably would of held a slightly dismissive attitude over the 17-55 too.. before I got it. I haven't a clue if you've had a good run with it, but if you haven't, I'd suggest you do. It's performance as a whole might just surprise you.


I'm not going to get into a "my lens is better than your lens" debate, just giving my opinion.

Of course not, and that isn't my intention for this discussion. I certainly wouldn't conclude which lens is absolutely 'better' either, taking into consideration their pricings.

[SeanH]

wow Sean, Great job swaying me to fork up the cash for the 17-55...

i decided to sell the 17-40 L and get the 17-55 instead...

A wise choice if your staying with the 1.6. I keep my 17-40L to use on my Mk2n. Even if you decide to move up to a 1.3 or FF that 17-55 2.8 normally sells on these boards in less than a day.

[freakeystyley34]

I think that I would go for the 17-40 and a fast prime over the 17-55. For indoor low light stuff, IS is ok, but there is no substitute for speed imo. For landscapes i'm sure the 17-40 will perform, maybe not quite as well as the 17-55, but one less stop (when you're likely to be using f/11 upwards) and IS (when you're likely to be using a tripod) really aren't important. I'm not the kind of person who would mind swapping to a prime for indoor stuff anyway, which would be much faster and sharper than the 17-55.

The reason i use the landscape comparison is that i see these as landscape lenses (obviously there are other uses!) as they're so wide and have a limited zoom range. I wouldn't really be using them as a "walkaround" lens as I would much prefer a higher zoom range, something like the 24-105, which obviously is f4 but has IS as well.

Again, I don't want to argue about it, just my 0.02.

[JimAskew]

wow Sean, Great job swaying me to fork up the cash for the 17-55...

i decided to sell the 17-40 L and get the 17-55 instead...

Absolutely the correct decision given your camera body and your shooting requirements :-)

[JMW-Photo]

Along with the guideline:

Crop = 17-55
FF = 17-40

The major guideline should be needs. I am working on making the switch to the 17-55 because of jumping into the wedding world. I need that extra bit of light to be able to get to my sensor. An extra 15mm can be quite useful just as losing 7mm on the 24-70 would kill me!

As for the IS, well would rather have the option to turn it off than no option to turn it on!

[august23]

Along with the guideline:

Crop = 17-55
FF = 17-40

The major guideline should be needs. I am working on making the switch to the 17-55 because of jumping into the wedding world. I need that extra bit of light to be able to get to my sensor. An extra 15mm can be quite useful just as losing 7mm on the 24-70 would kill me!

As for the IS, well would rather have the option to turn it off than no option to turn it on!

erm.... I think the guideline is crop 17-55, FF 24-70L. ;)

[nicksan]

One thing I can say for sure is that the 17-55 is one sharp lens...sharper than any of my L lenses.

On a crop body, I think it begins and ends with the 17-55...PERIOD!!!

I certainly enjoyed the heck out of it back when I used to own one.

[jedwards]

erm.... I think the guideline is crop 17-55, FF 24-70L. ;)

I agree, I would add crop 10-22, FF 17-40L as well. We should compare lenses by purpose.

[divinemethod]

I just sold my 17-40 to a nice friendly young man Who i Believe is on this forum too..

I am picking up the 17- 55 EFS tonight and I AM VERY EXCITED!
Heres the thing, when he was here, he reacquainted me with the 85mm 1.8 and the 50 mm.

Now I Am thinking.. "I will need something with this much DOF control soon enough" and decided to save up for one or the other..

But first ILL GO CRAZY WITH THE 17-55 woohooO!

On a serious note, this is an awesome forum, and it has helped me make an informed decision. Thank you guys!!

[Marydoright]

congrats divine....im excited for you!

this thread (one of MANY MANY MANY here) helped me decide on the 17-55 too!!!! It was tough weeding thru all the info, advice and comparisons, but I think I made the best choice to fit my needs. Thanks guys!!!!!!!!! I dont know what I would do without this forum! Now, I must get my POTN strap! LOL I will be complete!

[JimAskew]

I just sold my 17-40 to a nice friendly young man Who i Believe is on this forum too..

I am picking up the 17- 55 EFS tonight and I AM VERY EXCITED!
Heres the thing, when he was here, he reacquainted me with the 85mm 1.8 and the 50 mm.

Now I Am thinking.. "I will need something with this much DOF control soon enough" and decided to save up for one or the other..

But first ILL GO CRAZY WITH THE 17-55 woohooO!

On a serious note, this is an awesome forum, and it has helped me make an informed decision. Thank you guys!!

congrats divine....im excited for you!

this thread (one of MANY MANY MANY here) helped me decide on the 17-55 too!!!! It was tough weeding thru all the info, advice and comparisons, but I think I made the best choice to fit my needs. Thanks guys!!!!!!!!! I dont know what I would do without this forum! Now, I must get my POTN strap! LOL I will be complete!

Congrats to both of you...you have both made an excellent choice :D This lens is so versatile. A week ago I shot the DC Cherry Blossoms as landscapes and Sunday I did Easter portriats. Don't forget to try some low light shots as well...the IS feature is wonderful.

[Marydoright]

thanks Jim!!!!! will do, Im excited to do some portraits of my boys instead of paying some studio to do them! Cant wait to get it! too cool on the cherry blossoms.....too bad about all this cold weather :(

[JimAskew]

thanks Jim!!!!! will do, Im excited to do some portraits of my boys instead of paying some studio to do them! Cant wait to get it! too cool on the cherry blossoms.....too bad about all this cold weather :(

Mary,

Here are two 17-55MM EF-S IS samples: a) Landscape of the Washington Monument framed with Cherry Blossoms made Friday a week ago, and b) A portriat of my wife and Granddaughter opening Easter eggs on Sunday. This lens has an amazing range :)

[Marydoright]

WOW, WOW, and more WOW! 1st, let me say your grandbaby is TOO CUTE!!!! What a precious pic you caught of them!!! Nothin like Grandma's love....well, except grandpa's love, right? LOL

LOVE the pic of the cherry blossoms!!! On the news, you couldnt even see they were pink! I thought the cold/frost might have ruined them! Thats a great pic....OK...where is that darn brown truck at, I want that lens! :)

[JimAskew]

WOW, WOW, and more WOW! 1st, let me say your grandbaby is TOO CUTE!!!! What a precious pic you caught of them!!! Nothin like Grandma's love....well, except grandpa's love, right? LOL

LOVE the pic of the cherry blossoms!!! On the news, you couldnt even see they were pink! I thought the cold/frost might have ruined them! Thats a great pic....OK...where is that darn brown truck at, I want that lens! :)

Thanks :oops:

Jules is a true redhead with a feisty temper to match...we just love her to death :)

You are going to love the 17-55mm EF-S IS...it is just a wonderful lens. Be sure and post some pictures when you get it :)

[divinemethod]

I just got this baby.

When I was at a chinese restaurant in a corner with very little light, I tried to see if i can hand hold this thing at 1/8

[Alejoviade]

Remember that the Canon 17-55 2.8 is an EF-S series and therefore is ONLY compatible with Canon EF-S bodies, therefore.. If you thinking about "upgrading" to a 5D or similar (FF), this lens will not work on that camera !!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[chubbadoodles]

Hi I just took a look at your landscapes-it's late so I went through them quickly, but I really enjoyed them I stubled accross your thread because I'm considering trading my 17-40, 50.1.4 for a EFs 17-55. Were most ofyour photos taken with the 17-55? I did see a few 70mm but most of them seemed to be between 17-55. Any will go back and look at more when I have time. Thanks,

[Mike55]

I tried both and went with the 17-40L. The IQ was very similar, but I found the build quality of the 17-55IS to be poor for the price. It was too much like my 70-300IS in terms of build quality. Acceptable at $500-$650, not acceptable at $1000 IMHO. I found the difference between 50mm and 40mm just a few steps forward. Also, I like having lenses that I know will work on all Canon camera bodies.

Both great lenses though.

[sootyvrs]

I only have had a brief test of the 17-40L against the Tamron 17-50 and the Tamron shots were sharper after examination. I purchased the Tamron 17-50 but ended up with 2 bad focusing copies.

I ended up, without testing, the 17-55 as everyone raved about this lens, buying the 17-55 and now I know why so many love this lens! As a walkaround, it cannot be beat IMO with a fast'ish f2.8 and combined with IS makes this lens very usable in low light.

It really is as sharp as any zoom can get. :)

There are a few things to be aware of though. It's quite a large lens and if you use the on-board flash, then you have to zoom to 28mm, otherwise you will get a shadow and some have reported problems with flare so you have to be a little more careful where you point the lens.

[Wilt]

I tried both and went with the 17-40L. The IQ was very similar, but I found the build quality of the 17-55IS to be poor for the price. It was too much like my 70-300IS in terms of build quality. Acceptable at $500-$650, not acceptable at $1000 IMHO. I found the difference between 50mm and 40mm just a few steps forward. Also, I like having lenses that I know will work on all Canon camera bodies.

Both great lenses though.

It should not be forgotten that the lens has IS, which puts a $500-600 premium on the price of a lens...look at the 70-200 zooms with same max aperture both with and without IS, and the price differentials there.

So you are getting a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom with superb optics for $400-500, and then paying the premium for IS!