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 21 Jul 2009 (Tuesday) 07:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Once more: 17-40L vs. 17-55 2.8IS on crop camera

 
dave ­ sparks
Senior Member
287 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
Location: NW Indiana
     
Jul 21, 2009 13:01 as a reply to  @ post 8318601 |  #16

Hi,
Before I say anything, I'm not a person who needs wide angle much. 35mm on a FF would suit me great most of the time.

With that said I bought a 40D with a 24-105L. For my needs it's a great all around lens on a crop that covers a decent range with IS. Pair it up with a flash it's a nice set. When I bought my camera I could only swing one lens and this made a good choice for me. They can be found here for pretty decent prices.

The 17-55 canon is a great lens. I really considered it but when I started on this I made my mind up my ultimate kit would be a 5D+24-105 and 40D+70-200 2.8 or longer primes for sports and as a backup. Still sticking to that plan, lens this year, 5D next year. I reversed engineered it.

If you don't mind used you can find some good deals here as well on the Tamron 17-xx 2.8 and 70-200 f4L's. I haven't used the Tamron but it has good reviews here. I did get to try a 70-200 a while ago and it is a fantastic lens. If the $1000 budget is for lenses you should be able to swing it.

Dave...


40D, 24-105L, 380EX Speedlight.
Olympus E3, 14-54, 50-200, EC14 and Metz 48 AF-1.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DeMar
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jul 22, 2009 03:24 as a reply to  @ dave sparks's post |  #17

Wow, so many replies so fast, thanks a lot for taking the time (even reading the redigiously long post...) :D

I think I got two very good points here. Firstly ScottM´s point about going to FF and maybe not liking 17-40 anyway, if 10-22 is wide for me on crop 17-40 would be as well on FF. I mean I like the WA too, but would really need it so rarely that now I wouldnt spend my limited budget to 10-22, and if going to FF one day there will be second hand 17-40´s available anyway. Thanks Scott, this is obvious point but I really didn´t think it through properly for some reason!

Another, even more relevant and interesting view came from Wim. Meaning why go to crop if it seems so difficult to find the right glass for me what ever the reasons. I thought this over the night and more I think it more I agree. I just started planning this whole thing based on new gear, but it is absolutely true that second hand 5D´s are decently priced. And then I´d go right a way to 24-105 wich would be the all-arounder I think I would find useful for my needs, and is actually in nice sale at the moment in the local shop I´ve found reliable and good. The same dealer has several second hand 5D´s with price 850-950 eur (40D here 699 eur as new).

I know this start´s to be pretty off-topic, but shortly, could someone advise a bit what to look for in second hand body especially? What is the amount of pics taken you would concider too much? I think I´d take some 5 000-10 000 shots / year maybe, difficult to say as haven´t had my own dslr before and who knows how excited I get shooting anythign that moves ;).

Also if someone could have quick pro´s and con´s on 40D vs first gen 5D, would I really miss anything than some lenght on lenses and speed on continuous shooting for sports? And yes the UI and maybe LCD overall, but everything else just pro´s? Would love the weather protection, more I think it now. Must admit I´m bit rough with the gear often and can easily forget it where ever once and a while.. :oops:

And what comes to the 17-55 / 17-40, that´s clear now, if it´s crop body I´ll go for 17-55 and that´s it..

Sorry for such a long monolog again.. It´s just so much to ask and such a big thing for me getting the dslr after planning for it for about 5 years, wan´t to make the right decission.

Out for now, thanks again!

// Sami


40D / 50 1.8II / 10-22 / 24-105L / 70-200 F4 IS L / EX430

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reluix
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Kansas
     
Jul 22, 2009 06:07 |  #18

From reading over the majority of your post and currently being an owner of the 17-55mm, is that its a great lens thus far. Here is a recent picture i took which is a new favorite of mine. The colors i think are great and ive had tack on sharpness all through, i think you'd be a lot happier with a lower f stop + IS.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

My photography - http://www.flickr.com/​photos/reluix/ (external link)
Equipment:
Canon 20D-gripped 50 mm f/1.8 28-105mm Mkii 17-55mm f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jul 22, 2009 07:04 |  #19

I had a 40D and have a 5D

5D pros
full frame. better per pixel sharpness. less PP needed.
better high ISO performance
better control of DOF
more accurate and consistent center focus point, in my experience
the viewfinder

40D pros
higher FPS
better outer focus points
crop sensor giving more reach with same lens
less shutter lag and viewfinder blackout
less prone to getting dust in the viewfinder
puts less demand on lens's border performance

I purposely left out the menu interface since I don't go there often so it's of little importance to me.
I also left out the back LCD since neither of them are all that usefull although the 40D is larger.

There are more differences but they are of no consequence, imo.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The_Rural_Juror
Member
49 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jul 22, 2009 09:26 as a reply to  @ bohdank's post |  #20

I have both. The 17-55 performs better, but 17-40 is a better value.
You win both ways. :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
datboynamsays
Member
30 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jul 22, 2009 12:00 |  #21

17-40!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RyanQ
Senior Member
Avatar
456 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jul 22, 2009 12:14 |  #22

17-40L




  
  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
     
Jul 22, 2009 14:46 |  #23

This isn't a poll. If you are going to suggest a lens you should at least bother to offer some justification. Makes it kind of worthless to post otherwise. :)


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
RyanQ
Senior Member
Avatar
456 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jul 22, 2009 15:15 |  #24

okay, i've had millions problems with the 17-55 i had and probably covered all the problems you've read here.

17-40 none




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chambord
Senior Member
310 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 22, 2009 16:54 |  #25

17-55.

Without a shadow of a doubt on a crop camera. F2.8 + IS = un-beatable.

F2.8 sharpness is perfect.

Mines a year old and works like a charm! :D

Love it. Best lens I have ever owned, I would have a 5D Mk II if it wasn't for the fact the 24-70 doesn't have IS or the 24-105 isn't F2.8!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xchric
Junior Member
24 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jul 22, 2009 16:57 |  #26

on a crop camera
even 18-55 IS is better than 17-40L

17-40L is just a wide angle zoon on FF for "cheap".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,671 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 22, 2009 17:03 |  #27

Concorde Rules wrote in post #8326251 (external link)
17-55.

Without a shadow of a doubt on a crop camera. F2.8 + IS = un-beatable.

F2.8 sharpness is perfect.

Mines a year old and works like a charm! :D

Love it. Best lens I have ever owned, I would have a 5D Mk II if it wasn't for the fact the 24-70 doesn't have IS or the 24-105 isn't F2.8!

Actually, F/4 on FF has less DoF than F/2.8 on crop for the same AoV, so the 24-105L IS would be similar, be it with a longer zoom range, on FF to the 17-55 F/2.8 IS on crop.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 2 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paul ­ Li
Goldmember
Avatar
1,144 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Long Island
     
Jul 22, 2009 17:36 |  #28

If 24mm on your 40D isn't wide angle enough, then isn't 17-55 the winner for you? You could always get "warm rich colors" from post processing. For warmness, you could increase the color temperature. For richness, you could increase the vibrance; I don't know if "vibrance" is available on any other program besides photoshop, which I highly recommend if you don't have it.


Flickr (external link)
XS,AE-1,50 f1.8,430EX II+V4's,18-55IS,FD 50mm
Leave the IS on

  
  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
     
Jul 23, 2009 10:22 |  #29

wimg wrote in post #8326294 (external link)
Actually, F/4 on FF has less DoF than F/2.8 on crop for the same AoV, so the 24-105L IS would be similar, be it with a longer zoom range, on FF to the 17-55 F/2.8 IS on crop.

Kind regards, Wim

For wide, but I didn't think that was true if you moved to longer lenses.


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
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,671 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jul 23, 2009 10:29 |  #30

Citizensmith wrote in post #8330332 (external link)
For wide, but I didn't think that was true if you moved to longer lenses.

It is true for longer lenses, too. It is caused by the different FoV, which again is caused by the cropfactor difference. Don't forget that the cropfactor also applies to long lenses.

If you'd like, I'd look up the mathematics for you. Don't know the exact formulas by heart :D.

However, you can try this by using a good DoF calculator. Keep the focusing distance the same, change FL to get the same FoV, use the appropriate CoCs, set aperture to F/4 for FF, and F/2.5 for APS-C, and you'll find you have a little less DoF on FF at F/4 than at F/2.5 on APS-C.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 2 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

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

4,426 views & 0 likes for this thread
Once more: 17-40L vs. 17-55 2.8IS on crop camera
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 ttosite3
858 guests, 296 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.