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

 
mfunnell
Senior Member
Avatar
375 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jun 13, 2010 00:38 |  #46

skooba wrote in post #10348407 (external link)
[re 17-55/2.8IS] agree, it's a very nice lens, albeit rather pricey.

But I'm still enjoying the photos, long after the pain of the price has (almost) faded from memory.

...Mike


Some digital cameras, some film cameras, some lenses & other kit.
Day-to-day photos on flickr (external link), some older stuff at dA (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Destractions
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Victoria BC
     
Jun 13, 2010 00:42 as a reply to  @ post 10351479 |  #47

I read so much about the EF telephotos being longer on a crop and EF wideangles not translating? I'm not sure how I got that wrong for so long. So the ef 70-200mm has the same reach on my crop as a full frame. right then, I bought the 10-22mm because I thought it was the only Canon option for a crop UWA, oh well. :rolleyes:


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 14, 2010 19:50 as a reply to  @ Destractions's post |  #48

Okay, sorry to drag this up again but I don't want to make a new thread just to make sure I'm clear.


EF 17 = EF-S 17 when mounted on a crop body, however EF 17 gives a wider FOV on a full frame than it does on a 1.6 crop? (somehwere around EF-S 11?)
An EF 17-40mm is a Ultra wide angle on a FF but a standard zoom on a crop?

Am I all clear on this?


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jun 14, 2010 20:05 |  #49

Destractions wrote in post #10362388 (external link)
Okay, sorry to drag this up again but I don't want to make a new thread just to make sure I'm clear.

EF 17 = EF-S 17 when mounted on a crop body, however EF 17 gives a wider FOV on a full frame than it does on a 1.6 crop? (somehwere around EF-S 11?)
An EF 17-40mm is a Ultra wide angle on a FF but a standard zoom on a crop?

Am I all clear on this?

Yes, that is correct.

Simplest:

A 10mm lens on 1.6X format bodies will give the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on a FF body.

And EF and EF-S lenses all have the same angle of view when used on a 1.6X body. So the EF-S 17-55 and the EF 17-40 have the same angle of view on a 7D (for example) when set to 17mm.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Destractions
Senior Member
Avatar
391 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Victoria BC
     
Jun 14, 2010 20:09 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #50

Thanks, I've got it figured out now. It seems I was confused about EF lenses on crop bodies. I thought they gave a different FOV. Now it all makes sense, the 10-22mm was my only choice for a 1st party UWA on my crop!

However, now that I see the EF 17-40mm is actually the same price as the EF-S 10-22mm I feel ripped off! I guess the lens savings are in the telephoto end of things with crop bodies but you pay more for the UWA. Lame! :(


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
557 posts
Gallery: 125 photos
Likes: 634
Joined May 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Jun 14, 2010 20:10 |  #51

Destractions wrote in post #10362388 (external link)
Okay, sorry to drag this up again but I don't want to make a new thread just to make sure I'm clear.

EF 17 = EF-S 17 when mounted on a crop body, however EF 17 gives a wider FOV on a full frame than it does on a 1.6 crop? (somehwere around EF-S 11?)
An EF 17-40mm is a Ultra wide angle on a FF but a standard zoom on a crop?

Am I all clear on this?

Check this out:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx (external link)

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 | Olympus TG-6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jb1911
Senior Member
Avatar
492 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago area
     
Jun 21, 2010 14:53 |  #52

I'd much rather have an EF-S 10-22mm than an EF 17-40mm. I wouldn't say you were ripped off at all.


7D/BG-E7 - 580EXII - EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM - EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - in a Domke F-2RW
http://www.banpuppymil​ls.com/ (external link)
I like to keep a bottle of liquor handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy. ~ W C Fields ~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mj_photo
Member
233 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Jun 21, 2010 14:58 |  #53

I like colors on 10-22mm more than on 17-40L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Transfer
Senior Member
Avatar
323 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Jul 14, 2010 13:59 |  #54

I've had the 15-85 on my 7D for about 3 months now and I'm about ready to sell it. I find that in my uses (mostly outdoor at the limits of wide and tele) the IQ is just above average or good. My Tamron 17-50 non-VC was sharper and my Canon 55-250 is generally sharper. CA has been noticeable when wide, although it hasn't really ruined any images. Also, the aperature range of the 15-85 is certainly nothing to get excited about so I'm going to try the 17-55. I loved my Tamron but wanted IS and the Canon should fill that void nicely.

I orginally bought the 15-85 for the great focal length range but I've been a little disappointed. Anyone else with similar feelings?


EOS 40D | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paradiddleluke
Goldmember
Avatar
3,594 posts
Likes: 44
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Jul 14, 2010 14:03 |  #55

I love mine, beats the crap out of the kit lens I had! and actually my sharpness wide open is better than my 50 1.8 stopped even to 3.2


Website (external link) | Chicago Actor Headshots (external link) | Gear | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Youtube (external link) | Facebook (external link)
- Luke S -

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bdconner
Member
55 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Bedford, IN United States
     
Jul 15, 2010 21:47 |  #56

the 24-105 on a 7d is a bit narrow have one myself, the 17-55 is awesome on this body but be careful if buying an older used one the early ones seem to have many IS issues.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mookalafalas
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,149 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 588
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Southern Taiwan
     
Aug 18, 2010 09:34 as a reply to  @ bdconner's post |  #57

Wow, Transfer, it is nice to hear your view, cuz that is exactly the way I feel. There is nothing wrong with the 15-85, but for some reason I just can't get excited about using it. I had a Tamron for 2 days (I bought it for a 3 week trip in the mountains, but it was smashed by a stewardess on Delta airlines before I even got off the airplane) and I loved the pictures it took. When I went to replace it (in Colorado) I found it was almost 200 bucks more than what it cost me here (in Taiwan) and since the Canon was just $49 more than that, I decided to go with the "legitimate" lens. I took about 3 thousand pictures with the Canon, but w/o that sharpness or DOF, they just don't do that much for me. Just today I decided to try to unload it, but am not sure if I should go for the 17-55 or just replace my Tamron. I've read so many people saying "if you can afford it, go for the 17-55," but almost everyone who has used the Tammie also raves about it, and here in Taiwan the non-VC is exactly 1/3 the Canon price...


Call me Al Gear Flickr (external link)
You don’t have to have a great lens to take great pictures—but it sure helps. –Ben Long

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
reaz82
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 18, 2010 10:28 |  #58

I've owned the 17-40mm L till recently and sold it. I've also tried out a 17-55mm f/2.8. I have to say that the reason I sold the 17-40mm L was exactly because it did not make a good walk around lens for me. Your choice absolutely depends on the type of photographer you are. If you find yourself taking most shots from a distance you will find the 17-40 somewhat restrictive.

The 17-55mm produces equivalent quality images for outdoor shots as 17-40mm; at low light the 17-55mm does better. The build quality of the 17-55 is not as good as the 17-40. The play on the zoom ring will show up as a significant difference. The 17-40 zooms in and out very smoothly. The 17-55 does not. But things like these are to be expected from non-L lens.

IQ is great and if that's what matters to you I'd recommend the 17-55 as a better walk around lens compared to the 17-40 depending on your photography style.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris
Goldmember
Avatar
4,128 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 45
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Algonquin, IL
     
Aug 18, 2010 11:29 |  #59

I had the 17-55 for 3 years and it was amazing. I put a filter on it on day one and only took it off when shooting in to bright lights at night. When I sold it last month, it had one or two specs of dust. I'd say I probably shot 10,000 images with it over that time period. I never had one issue with the lens. I shoot quite a bit indoor so this was a great zoom lens for me especially complimented by the 70-200 2.8 IS.

The only thing I didn't like about it was that it seemed to be a flare magnet, especially with the UV filter attached.


Chris

70D | 24-70 2.8 | 400 5.6 | 580 EXII | 2X Yongnuo 622C |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
namolsimal
Hatchling
Avatar
1 post
Joined Oct 2010
Location: on a island, Danube Delta
     
Oct 26, 2010 15:05 as a reply to  @ Chris's post |  #60

I also am in same issue, I don`t know exactly what to buy.
I did test of Tamron 17-50 II with IS, Canon 15-85 IS and 17-40 L, and the best picture i get it was made with Tamron :( . But I like to have original Canon, I am with the brand, maybe this is my mistake and I pay more money for it.
Anyway, 17-40 is very good at construction, it is small and the USM is very very good, but for me 40mm is not enough, so I decide to buy 15-85 mm, but not yet buy because I am still in question mark.
I will see next week about 15-85. I read that 17-55 is the best, but is very expansive:(


_______________
Namolsimal
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/13854605@N06/ (external link)
40D | wait for 15-85 | 18-55 IS | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 Macro 1:1 | 70-200 4 L | Canon Deluxe 200 Tripod | 430 EX

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

63,332 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 ibflyin
878 guests, 229 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.