Canon 17-40L (on a crop) - why?

I am always wondering about the 17-40L. Why would anyone using a crop get this lens?

It has quite a short range, has f/4 and doesn't even have IS? That's 3 factors that are important factors when buying a lens and neither of them are good on the lens. The only thing that it's got working for it, is that it's an EF mount, so it can be used on FF's.
I see people recommend a 17-40 for crop users and then I'm only like: Why would you ever want that? A Tamron 17-50 out performs the 17-40 at f/4, according to this chart:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The Tamron is faster, cheaper ánd has a longer focal length. Why would anyone even want a 17-40?

Pléase enlighten me!

Build quality and weather resistance on a 7D, 5DII and 1 series? I have the Tamron and love it, but worry about it in the rain. Also, if you shoot with FF and crop's, it will work with both mounts as you mentioned.
Poor man's 16-35L?

Three things:

The red ring looks pretty
Build quality
They justify it because "they plan to upgrade to full frame soon" or already have a full frame body.

when I had my 50D I quickly regretted buying it after the "L"ust went away. I upgraded to FF 3 weeks ago and am in "L"ove all over again

honestly, some get it just because its an L - and then find out, while its a great lens, its not ideal for a crop and you see so many in the classifieds section.

its an ideal lens for FF users.

m.shalaby wrote in post #11993589
honestly, some get it just because its an L - and then find out, while its a great lens, its not ideal for a crop and you see so many in the classifieds section.

its an ideal lens for FF users.

Aren't there any better alternatives out there? The f/4 ánd non-IS seem a bit harsh to me. In low-light this lens isn't ANYWHERE is it?

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #11993570
Three things:

The red ring looks pretty
Build quality
They justify it because "they plan to upgrade to full frame soon" or already have a full frame body.

So there pretty much is a reason image wise why one would want the 17-40? That's sorta stupid...

I use it regularly in 5D and 1D where it's great, but rarely on APS-C.

But as to your specific points:
~ It has a crop FoV of 28-64, marginally shorter at both ends than a 24-70 on FF
~ ƒ4 is just one stop or one shutter speed slower than 2.8. In most circumstances, it's not a deal-breaker. Where you need a flash on ƒ4, you'd likely also need it at 2.8.
~ You really don't need IS at these short focal lengths, given the adage that minimum hand-holding shutter speed should equal focal length.

I think much of it has to do with the fact that it's an L lens and that it's relatively affordable. Most new DSLR owners quickly get the bug for an L lens, and the price of the 17-40 make it attainable. The 70-200/4L (non-IS) also seems to be in the same boat, though it's perfectly justifiable on a crop sensor.

TijmenDal wrote in post #11993614
Aren't there any better alternatives out there? The f/4 ánd non-IS seem a bit harsh to me. In low-light this lens isn't ANYWHERE is it?

So there pretty much is a reason image wise why one would want the 17-40? That's sorta stupid...

the fastest UWA that I know of is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - its made for crop users.

From what I've read, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is as sharp as any L lens. Almost as expensive, as well, but it does have IS. AND, it is f/2.8 over the whole range. That's why I bought one for my 7D.

Because then they can put a stupid red "L" in their signature.

*ducks and hides*

Has me stumped. An extra stop of lights from a Tamron 17-50 is significant. So is the money left in your wallet afterwards. There are actually quite a few people that only buy Canon gear. Some people will only buy certain brand cars and computers too. I'll never understand them, I've given up trying.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #11993570
Three things:

The red ring looks pretty
Build quality
They justify it because "they plan to upgrade to full frame soon" or already have a full frame body.

This pretty much sums it.

Reasons why I'm considering it:

It's not that expensive used
Build quality is second to none
Holds its value well, or will if version 2 comes out
No (?) QC issues unlike 3rd party lenses
I don't need f/2.8
I don't need IS since almost all mission critical photos are taken on a tripod
Considering a 5D3

TijmenDal wrote in post #11993547
I am always wondering about the 17-40L. Why would anyone using a crop get this lens?

It has quite a short range, has f/4 and doesn't even have IS? That's 3 factors that are important factors when buying a lens and neither of them are good on the lens. The only thing that it's got working for it, is that it's an EF mount, so it can be used on FF's.
I see people recommend a 17-40 for crop users and then I'm only like: Why would you ever want that? A Tamron 17-50 out performs the 17-40 at f/4, according to this chart:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The Tamron is faster, cheaper ánd has a longer focal length. Why would anyone even want a 17-40?

Pléase enlighten me!

First off, I often wonder myself and have engaged that debate with people before. Why get it when you can get a zoom intended for crops cameras? The lens is intended to have a wider field of view so will have optics that are shaped slightly differently than a smaller lens in the same FL range build specifically for crop cameras.
On a side note, I wouldn't judge a lens by charts alone. By chart shots alone my 50L is the weakest lens I own, but it renders light and colors in a way that no other lens I own can. My 15mm fisheye is technically
sharper than my 50 but the images out of the 50 are far more pleasing to look at. Often times they get no or marginal post processing, something I can't say about any of my other lenses. If I were to go by charts alone I never would have even bought the lens.

hmm... i guess the 17-40 still gives off very good colors and contrast despite its handicaps.