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 30 Oct 2008 (Thursday) 18:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF 17-40 f/4L USM (vs) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

 
BlindGuyTakingPictures
Senior Member
Avatar
321 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:05 |  #1

I plan on picking up a XSi camera this weekend and 1 lens.

I have researched these two lenses:
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

From the reviews I have read, both are an excellent choice, but I can't decide. One on one hand the 17-40 is part of the L series but not IS and a f/4L. On the other hand, the 17-55 does have more zoom and IS along with f/2.8. I am leaning more towards the EF-S lens but that L series lens seems to be on the best seller's list.

Which lens and why?

Any input is much appreciated.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
edekba
Member
Avatar
166 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Torrance, CA
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:16 |  #2

My thought is the EF-S is a lot better than the 17-40L, due to having IS & f/2.8. Also i've read on various sites that the EF-S 17-55 is pretty much an L lens, but because of marketing and not fitting on FF cameras, it was not marketed as such.

Since you'll be using an XSi, get the EF-S.


Canon EOS Rebel XSi (All for sale)
-EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
-EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MinhThien
Goldmember
Avatar
1,644 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:36 |  #3

I vote for the 17-55 f2.8 IS the best lens for 1.6x body!


Eric
R6 | rf50L | rf85L DS | ef200L IS | 470ex | 190CXPRO4 | 498RC2 | TT Streetwalker Roller| TT Restro 7 | F-stop Kenti |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pete-eos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,999 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
Location: SW London UK
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:37 |  #4

I'd go for the 17-55 f/2.8, I've just sold two f/1.8 primes and hope the IS makes up for my speed loss. F4 is to slow for me personally.

Worth a read...
https://photography-on-the.net …141&highlight=1​7-40+17-55




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
El ­ Duderino
Goldmember
Avatar
1,921 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Denver, CO
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:50 |  #5

You'd be a fool to not get the 17-55.


Nikon D600 | Bower 14mm f/2.8 | Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR | Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR | Nikon 50mm f/1.8G | Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
500px (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  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
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:52 |  #6

Generally I would say the EF-S 17-55 is the better lens overall for the 1.6X body owner.

The 17-40 is nice, but I would only give it the nod on 1.6X for a dedicated landscape photographer. For generalist use the 17-55 is more flexible.


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
Midlife ­ Crisis
Member
77 posts
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 30, 2008 18:59 |  #7

The ONLY reason why the 17-55 isn't a "L" lens and doesn't have a red ring is that it's EF-S and not EF. That was said by Canon. Buy the 17-55.


30D
17-55 IS
70-200 f2.8 IS
Leica M3 :p

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sol95
Senior Member
661 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 30, 2008 21:31 |  #8

Midlife Crisis wrote in post #6594221 (external link)
The ONLY reason why the 17-55 isn't a "L" lens and doesn't have a red ring is that it's EF-S and not EF. That was said by Canon. Buy the 17-55.

not quite accurate...the build quality is no where near L quality, even though optically it's very good.

i agree for a crop camera, the 17-55 is a better fit. but personally, i just can't justify the money needed...


Bodies: 5D mk III
Lenses: 50 f/1.2L | 85 f/1.2L II | 100 f/2.8L IS Macro | 17-40 f/4.0L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Accessories: 430EX II | TC-80N3 M43: Olympus E-PM1 | Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42 II R | Panasonic 14 f/2.5 | Panasonic 20 f/1.8 | Olympus m.Zuiko 45 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gorby
Senior Member
531 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Oct 31, 2008 00:37 |  #9

This must be the most repeated thread du jour

I'm enjoying the 17-40

Then again I use it for portraits and landscapes. If you intend to shoot low light a lot with one of these, you expectations would change. I grab the nifty fifty in such situations, no worries.


5D MKII | 650D [SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=​1]| 350D (RIP)
17-40 f/4L | 70-200 f/4L | 50mm 1.8 | 18-135 STM IS
My work (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Collin85
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,164 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sydney/Beijing
     
Oct 31, 2008 00:42 |  #10

17-55 hands down. I've owned both for over a year now and I have to say the 17-55 is far more versatile, due to the longer reach, IS and f/2.8. If you like to play in low-light, then the 17-55 would serve you well. The 17-40 however is built much better and has better flare control. It makes for an exceptional landscape lens, if that's the main thing you do. But as a general walkaround, I would much prefer the 17-55.


Col | Flickr (external link)

Sony A7 + Leica 50 Lux ASPH, Oly E-M5 + 12/2
Canon 5D3, 16-35L, 50L, 85L, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Viffer06
Member
Avatar
214 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Oct 31, 2008 00:52 as a reply to  @ Collin85's post |  #11

$$ for $$

17 - 55 f2.8 IS = 17 - 40 F4L plus 85mm 1.8 (if you're a good, you could probably add a nifty here 50mm 1.8)

Then save up for 70 -200 f2.8 IS. bw!


www.rsalcedo.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Collin85
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,164 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sydney/Beijing
     
Oct 31, 2008 00:55 |  #12

Viffer06 wrote in post #6595883 (external link)
$$ for $$

17 - 55 f2.8 IS = 17 - 40 F4L plus 85mm 1.8 (if you're a good, you could probably add a nifty here 50mm 1.8)

Then save up for 70 -200 f2.8 IS. bw!

I went that route once, I ain't gonna be stung by it again. I've tried the whole 'get several lenses with none of them particularly versatile' for the same price as a 17-55. Honestly, it sucked.


Col | Flickr (external link)

Sony A7 + Leica 50 Lux ASPH, Oly E-M5 + 12/2
Canon 5D3, 16-35L, 50L, 85L, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pete-eos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,999 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
Location: SW London UK
     
Oct 31, 2008 05:55 |  #13

Collin85 wrote in post #6595895 (external link)
I went that route once, I ain't gonna be stung by it again. I've tried the whole 'get several lenses with none of them particularly versatile' for the same price as a 17-55. Honestly, it sucked.


Amen, I did a similar route, as much as I liked my 28 f/1.8 & loved my 85 f/1.8 as a combo but it just wasn't worth the hassle with all the travel, mountain biking, general shooting etc etc, bring on the 17-55.
bw!;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sm2s
Member
49 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Nov 30, 2008 21:14 |  #14

i am having the same dilemma and it seems as though this topic has been beaten to death multiple times here..

i have a 40d and i shoot mainly people (indoors), but also do some car shooting & landscapes on vacation and stuff. seems as though most people are pushing the 1755... is it really worth the extra money?


40D//300D//tammy17-50//18-55//100f2.8//50f1.8//4​30exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jjcharity
Senior Member
347 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 30, 2008 21:34 |  #15

JeffreyG wrote in post #6594167 (external link)
The 17-40 is nice, but I would only give it the nod on 1.6X for a dedicated landscape photographer. For generalist use the 17-55 is more flexible.

I knew you had to own the 17-40 to make that landscape statement.




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

5,134 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF 17-40 f/4L USM (vs) EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
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 Big Bill T
821 guests, 182 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.