Need Advice - 17-40 vs 17-55

[Naturalist]

I was going through the same comparisons wondering what to get a couple of years ago. I selected the EF-S 17-55 over the EF 17-40L because:

1. I like the IS feature and have actually found it more useful than I ever thought I would,
2. I prefer faster lenses over slower ones
3. I prefer the f/2.8 over f/4 for the tighter DoF,
4. I can always shoot the EF-S at f/4 but could never shoot the EF 17-40 at f/2.8,
5. Build quality was really not an issue as I have yet to break a lens (knock on wood),
6. The EF-S is known for its near L quality optics, and
7. I was (and still am) shooting on with an APS-C sensor.

I have not regretted the decision one bit as the EF-S 17-55 is a great lens. Bottom line to me is that this lens removes the limitations I would have had with the EF 17-40L.

[AlanU]

I would simply go faster glass when budget permits. 17-55IS would be the lens I'd go for if I was a 1.6 crop body user. The colder images can be warmed up in post processing. If you buy this lens it will be a universal lens in most applications regardless of light. The 17-40L is slower and less range on the long end.

OP if your truly not concerned with the f/4 limitation of the 17-40L (only real downfall for the affordable L) The colours and contrast is far better than the 17-55IS IMO. The 17-55is is more ideal though.

[watt100]

Originally Posted by robertr316

watt100...thank you for the response, but I'm actually contemplating 2 L's...the other is the 24-105, which is the one I'm actually favoring by a slight margin over the other 2 right now. Whichever one I get, it will replace my 28-135.
Would your comment apply to the 24-105 as well or just the 17-40?
How reliable/accurate is that website? I'm not too familiar with that site, so I ask out of ignorance.
The reason I've kept the 17-40 in the mix is it's $250 less than the 17-55 which gives me a head start towards my next lens. Frankly, aside from the digital picture comparison, I've seen some really nice photos taken with the 17-40 on a crop model. But like I said in my last post, I need to physically touch the 17-55 with my hands to help break the mental block I'm having over the inferior build as compared to an L lens.

Go to any of lens comparison websites like www.photozone.de and digital picture. Look at the reviews, conclusions and summary. Look at the "MTF" or image resolution data. You will see the image resolution for different lens at comparable focal ranges. Lens made specifically for crop models like the Canon 17-55IS are sharper than the equivalent full frame zooms (if that makes any sense) But the end result may not matter, if you're determined to get an expensive zoom get the L. If you ever buy a full frame model it will shine. Really, almost any lens you pick will be sharper than the 28-135, seriously, even the el cheapo 55-250IS and 18-55IS runs optic circles around the 28-135!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=2

[Dragos Jianu]

17-55 any day. sure, the 17-40 bears the L myth, but unless you don't mind f/4, lack of IS, and worst IQ just to use an L, you should get the right lens for the job. the 17-40 was never designed as a standard zoom. it's like buying a highend BlackBerry over an iPhone/iPod for gaming.

[AlanU]

Originally Posted by Dragos Jianu

17-55 any day. sure, the 17-40 bears the L myth, but unless you don't mind f/4, lack of IS, and worst IQ just to use an L, you should get the right lens for the job. the 17-40 was never designed as a standard zoom. it's like buying a highend BlackBerry over an iPhone/iPod for gaming.

Have you used this lens extensively ? I'm the sort that will never justify my purchases $$$ on the lenses I buy. My copy has been prime like in sharpness wideopen. Excellent/amazing colours and contrast even wideopen.

I've used my 17-40L on my xti, 50d croppers and have always had excellent IQ. This is also comparing this to my dedicated crop Sigma 18-50 lens.

I know this lens is only an f/4 but from 17-40mm the sharpness wideopen is par with my 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2.

If I had a 7d or any other decent 1.6 crop I'd buy the 17-55IS simply because its a canon lens with accurate AF and its a sharp f/2.8 zoom. As far as colour/contrast is concerned I can achieve LESS COOL tones by using the X-rite colour passport or simply warming it in post by "eye". I doubt I'd ever buy sigma or any 3rd party ever again but thats just me.

[rx7speed]

Originally Posted by robertr316

Ok, so based on all the responses it sounds like the majority really like the optics of the 17-55 but I'm having a really hard time getting past the thought of paying $1000 for a lens with inferior build quality as compared to the L lenses. This leaves me leaning towards one of the L lenses. I think my best bet will be to go to my local camera shop and have a look at all three lenses to see how they feel in my hand and get a hands on feel for the positives and negatives of each focal range. Feel free to continue with your recommendations as I really appreciate all the feedback.

the build quality of the 17-55 isn't junk. sure it's not a full metal body like the L lenses but the build quailty still isn't that bad. the optics are good though and it provides things that the L lens will not provide. a more usable range, IS, and a faster aperture for if needed (low light or need greater effects of DOF).

let me ask are you planning on smashing the lens around

as far as the 24-105 I was in that boat myself as I don't usually shoot that wide, but found out at times when out in the "wild" so to speak and away from what I normally do the extra width is just something I can't get around. atleast with needing a bit more reach I can crop or switch to a tele lens (Don't own a true wide angle so can't switch to a wider)

[robertr316]

No, I don't plan on smashing this lens around. I'm actually very careful with my lenses. I think I just need to hold the lens in my hand to get over my 'L-build complex'. It will also be helpful for me to physically see the difference in focal length of each lens to see what I'm getting and what I'll be missing.

[ragtop88]

Like rx7speed said, the 17-55 build quality isn't junk. Although I don't do this for a living, mine's been a workhorse for my trips to Alaska, 9 days of hiking in olympic national park, monument valley, the grand canyon, shuttle launches, and everywhere in between. I've probably put 20,000 photos through the lens, at least 3/4 with the IS on and its worked flawlessly.

[Snydremark]

Originally Posted by robertr316

No, I don't plan on smashing this lens around. I'm actually very careful with my lenses. I think I just need to hold the lens in my hand to get over my 'L-build complex'. It will also be helpful for me to physically see the difference in focal length of each lens to see what I'm getting and what I'll be missing.

That would be a really good idea.

[rx7speed]

Originally Posted by robertr316

No, I don't plan on smashing this lens around. I'm actually very careful with my lenses. I think I just need to hold the lens in my hand to get over my 'L-build complex'. It will also be helpful for me to physically see the difference in focal length of each lens to see what I'm getting and what I'll be missing.

might not be a bad idea. only downside to the build is it is plastic, but even then plastic doesn't mean junk. plastic anymore can actually be QUITE strong. the lens barrel doesn't have slop in it, the zoom rings have just about as much play as my 70-200L has which is very minimal. the only real difference I can tell from it not being a L lens is the non metal body.

reason why I asked if you are going to smash your lens is if you are very carefull with them and take good care of the lens then build quality shouldn't be that big of an issue anyway as this lens still has a good build to it as long as you just dont' abuse it.

[Mark-B]

Originally Posted by robertr316

Ok, so based on all the responses it sounds like the majority really like the optics of the 17-55 but I'm having a really hard time getting past the thought of paying $1000 for a lens with inferior build quality as compared to the L lenses.

It might have inferior build quality compared to an L lens, but it has a better feature set than some L lenses also. Canon charges a premium for all of it's lens features, and you just have to decide which ones you are willing to pay for.

- 17-55 costs around $1,000. It has f/2.8 and IS, but lacks L build quality.
- 16-35 costs $500 more than the 17-55. It has the build and f/2.8, but lacks IS.
- 17-40 costs $250 less than the 17-55. It has the build, but lacks f/2.8 and IS.
- 24-70 costs $200 more than the 17-55. It has the build and f/2.8, but lacks IS.
- 24-105 costs the same as the 17-55. It has the build and IS, but lacks f/2.8.

In fact, the only Canon zoom lens that has L build combined with f/2.8 and IS is the 70-200 f/2.8, and it costs nearly $2,000.

Each lens feature seems to sell for around $200-$300. Going by the prices of these other lenses, I would guess that the 17-55 would cost around $1,300 if it were given a magnesium alloy lens barrel and an L designation. If that were the case, I wouldn't hesitate to get it as a new buyer, but I wouldn't bother to trade my existing one as a current owner. Now, if it came with an internal zoom....

[themadman]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

I am extremely happy with my 17-40 f/4.0L I just bought it this month and specifically for landscapes. So far I am loving it.

I took this image on the very first day of shooting with the 17-40 and my 40D.

Sure it can be used, but I am 99% positive a kit lens (18-55 IS for example) would have gotten you the same result in that photo.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=1

Again, the 17-40 is NOT a bad lens, but if I only owned APS-C cameras and had a choice, I'd take something like the Tamron 17-50 over it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2

EDIT: and I am not just going off of the digital picture, I obviously own this lens and own APS-C cameras, lol. It is easier to just link them than to take 30min and do my own test.

[dannn]

i would get the 17-55 if you have a crop body.
that lens is the only regret i have for going FF...

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by AlanU

My copy has been prime like in sharpness wideopen. [...] I know this lens is only an f/4 but from 17-40mm the sharpness wideopen is par with my 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2.

That is very different from the tests by slrgear, photozone, and the-digital-picture. According to your statements, your copy is 2 to 6 times sharper than one Canon themselves based their MTF charts on:

17-40: 9% MTF @ 17mm f/4, 20mm IH, 30 lp/mm, meridonial
70-200: 65% MTF @ 200mm f/2.8, 20mm IH, 30 lp/mm, meridonial

If the 17-40 really was that good, why would Canon make it look so terrible in their published MTF charts?

[MP4/8]

Originally Posted by robertr316

Ok, so based on all the responses it sounds like the majority really like the optics of the 17-55 but I'm having a really hard time getting past the thought of paying $1000 for a lens with inferior build quality as compared to the L lenses.

You mean.... your preference is to own an "L" lens...

.