Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 28 Nov 2009 (Saturday) 10:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40 vs 17-55 vs 15-85

 
Katalyst
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2010
Location: The Netherlands
     
May 25, 2010 13:59 |  #31

Same here, it seems to enter in the front and putting a UV Filter over it has worked for me too!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
fayenatic
Member
55 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
May 25, 2010 14:00 |  #32

considering the price difference between the 17-55 and 15-85... i'd go for the newer 15-85. that's me though, price matters. my roommate had a 17-55 that always had IS failure and caused the lens to be unusable (camera just wouldnt allow it to capture images) and he had to constantly send it back to canon. $1000 is too much for a lens to behave like that. 15-17 extra width and 55-85 extra length is make it a more versatile walk-around.


XTI | G10 | 30 1.4 | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jackthemac
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: ROSELAND NJ
     
May 25, 2010 16:23 |  #33

I have a 7d and 20D.I have used the 17-40 for 5 years and have always loved the handling, quality and results that came from the L. But, as walk around lens, it always left me wanting more reach. I have found the 15-85is satisfied my need for both wide angle and reach. Expect to sell 17-40. I never used the 17-55.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jurgenph
Member
231 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
May 25, 2010 16:37 |  #34

ry317 wrote in post #10235507 (external link)
I always found myself still using a flash indoors with my 17-55.

same here.

and my 15-85mm should be arriving one of these days :)


J.


40D, 15-85mm IS, 70-200mm f/4L IS, 50mm f/1.8II, 430exII, kenko 1.4tc

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lake_tuna
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
May 26, 2010 00:30 |  #35

I don't understand why people always say "I don't recommend the 17-40mm on a crop body." EF 17mm and EFS 17mm are the same on a crop body. Extra 15mm reach isn't that much. At today's market, 17-40mm cost 400 dollars less than the 17-55mm. I mean.. you get what you pay for. I guess funding isn't an issue for a lot of people.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
May 26, 2010 00:40 |  #36

lake_tuna wrote in post #10247286 (external link)
I don't understand why people always say "I don't recommend the 17-40mm on a crop body." EF 17mm and EFS 17mm are the same on a crop body. Extra 15mm reach isn't that much. At today's market, 17-40mm cost 400 dollars less than the 17-55mm. I mean.. you get what you pay for. I guess funding isn't an issue for a lot of people.

For the 17-40's price or less you can get a lens that's 10mm longer and one stop faster.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
May 27, 2010 13:52 |  #37

I like the 17-55 because I find that 2.8, IS and pushing the ISO some IS enough to avoid using the flash. Couldn't tell you the last time I bother to put mine on. Whereas if I had the 15-85 I'd probably find myself regularly swapping to a prime for extra speed. And that was one of the reasons I ditched the 17-40.

Also, the 2.8 vs the 3.5-5.6 isn't just an issue of low light shutter speeds, it also affects DOF and how bright your viewfinder is which can help with focusing.

If the 15-85 had been available I may well have got it instead of the 17-55. However as it is, I'm glad I made the choice as I feel the 17-55 is usable in a wider range of conditions.


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Darkwand
Goldmember
Avatar
1,850 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 25
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Åkersberga, Sweden
     
Jun 11, 2010 14:40 |  #38

The 15-85 is a minivan and the 17-55 is a sports car, nuff said :)


Adrian My Flickr (external link)
Canon 6D, Canon 7D, Canon 500D, Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 85mm f/1,8 USM, Sigma 70-200mm HSM Macro, 10-20mm f/4-5,6

Manfrotto 055 CXPRO4 + 498RC2, Manfrotto 410 Junior, Elinchrom: RX1200, 2x BRX250 , Dlite-it 4 and 2, Canon 580EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JLai81
Senior Member
736 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
     
Jun 11, 2010 15:16 |  #39

I haven't tried the 15-85 or the 17-40, but I love my 17-55.

Constant 2.8 + IS = no brainer.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DL.Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,456 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: NYC
     
Jun 11, 2010 15:24 |  #40

Because it will probably be heavier than the brick (24-70)

tivoboy wrote in post #9197792 (external link)
why can't canon just get ON WITH IT and make the 15-85 2.8?


- Dan
Gear List & Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skooba
Member
Avatar
105 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
     
Jun 12, 2010 09:40 |  #41

JLai81 wrote in post #10345090 (external link)
I haven't tried the 15-85 or the 17-40, but I love my 17-55.

Constant 2.8 + IS = no brainer.

I agree, it's a very nice lens, albeit rather pricey.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Destractions
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Victoria BC
     
Jun 12, 2010 10:40 |  #42

edit:

lake_tuna wrote in post #10247286 (external link)
I don't understand why people always say "I don't recommend the 17-40mm on a crop body." EF 17mm and EFS 17mm are the same on a crop body. Extra 15mm reach isn't that much. At today's market, 17-40mm cost 400 dollars less than the 17-55mm. I mean.. you get what you pay for. I guess funding isn't an issue for a lot of people.

?? So my EF 50mm and EF 70-200 are producing the same image on my crop as they would on a full frame?


The unholy trinity:
EF 70-200mm F4 \ & Tamron-F 2X TC
EFS 17-55mm f/2.8
EFS 10-22mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Destractions
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Victoria BC
     
Jun 12, 2010 11:20 as a reply to  @ Destractions's post |  #43

lake_tuna wrote in post #10247286 (external link)
I don't understand why people always say "I don't recommend the 17-40mm on a crop body." EF 17mm and EFS 17mm are the same on a crop body. Extra 15mm reach isn't that much. At today's market, 17-40mm cost 400 dollars less than the 17-55mm. I mean.. you get what you pay for. I guess funding isn't an issue for a lot of people.

A 17-40mm on a crop body is actually giving you a range of 27-64mm after the crop factor, which is hardly wide angle at all.
http://photonotes.org …M&lens3=*&lens4​=*&lens5=* (external link)

Why would anyone consider the 17-55mm and the 17-40 as being similar choices? The difference in wide angle is 10mm. Anyone care to correct the misunderstanding here, whether it is mine or the previous posters?


The unholy trinity:
EF 70-200mm F4 \ & Tamron-F 2X TC
EFS 17-55mm f/2.8
EFS 10-22mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sparksdjs
Senior Member
521 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Likes: 446
Joined May 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Jun 12, 2010 18:45 |  #44

Destractions wrote in post #10348773 (external link)
A 17-40mm on a crop body is actually giving you a range of 27-64mm after the crop factor, which is hardly wide angle at all.
http://photonotes.org …M&lens3=*&lens4​=*&lens5=* (external link)

Why would anyone consider the 17-55mm and the 17-40 as being similar choices? The difference in wide angle is 10mm. Anyone care to correct the misunderstanding here, whether it is mine or the previous posters?

Are you saying that you do not apply the 1.6 crop conversion factor to EF-S lenses as you do with EF? 17mm on an EF-S lens is the same as 17mm on an EF lens if both are mounted on a 1.6 body (e.g., 40D) - approx 27mm full-frame equivalent. Crop factor applies just the same to both. (Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your point).

Dave


Canon 70D | 15-85IS | 70-200 f/4L IS | 35mm f/2 IS | 18-135IS STM | 18-55IS | 70-300IS | 10-22mm | 100mm macro | 85mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/1.4 | 580EX II | Canon G7X Mk II | Canon G12

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gojirasf
Senior Member
Avatar
349 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Jun 12, 2010 22:50 as a reply to  @ sparksdjs's post |  #45

The way it works is that the 17mm field of view is the same on a 1.6 crop camera, whether the lens is an EF or an EF-S mount. A 17-40 at 17mm and a 17-55 at 17mm will give you the exact same framing when attached to a crop camera.


α9 | 18/2.8 | 24/1.4 | 55/1.8 | 70-200/4 | 100-400/4.5-5.6 | Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

61,095 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40 vs 17-55 vs 15-85
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is David Ruddock
2097 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.