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

hawkan wrote in post #12096010
I don't get why some people are so upset with us "17-40 on crop" users. Just use the gear that works for you, and leave it at that.

i don't think people get upset...i could care less what lenses people use...but if a newbie posts a thread saying

"hey, i really want L glass because i see so many great pictures from L glass. i have a 7D, and i am going to get a 17-40L because it'll provide me with great L pictures."

I'm going to point out the pros of using a crop specific camera over the L...i'll also point out the L's build, weather-sealing, flare control...if those are things they value...fine...persona​lly build is on the bottom of my priorities, and weather sealing has no use for me

i find all the 17-40L users think everyone is saying it's a bad lens, by simply pointing out other lenses that offer way more, and allow a photographer more flexibility, and opportunities for other photographs...great the 17-40L works for you, but that certainly doesn't make it the best lens for a crop...

So the OP only has one reason to not get this lens for crop, because IS is useless at this focal length, and its a pretty standard zoom on a 1.6. Unless you really need that one stop, sounds like an awesome lens for the price to me.

mhazlett wrote in post #12201048
So the OP only has one reason to not get this lens for crop, because IS is useless at this focal length, and its a pretty standard zoom on a 1.6. Unless you really need that one stop, sounds like an awesome lens for the price to me.

I dont think its a bad lens (I own one, only I use FF) - it will produce beautiful images, regardless of the format. What most are trying to convey is not that it is a bad lens, only that there are lenses that will produce images of the same quality while being a much more flexible tool on a crop body.

The alternatives have many traits that make them more desireable than the 17-40 on a crop body. You can choose faster, wider focal range, IS, lighter or cheaper - all with about the same IQ. Many of the alternatives give you more than one of the above.

I wouldnt tell anyone who already owns the lens they need to get rid of it if they use it on a crop body, its just not the first lens Im going to recommend in this category for someone who wants advice on a new lens.

mhazlett wrote in post #12201048
So the OP only has one reason to not get this lens for crop, because IS is useless at this focal length, and its a pretty standard zoom on a 1.6. Unless you really need that one stop, sounds like an awesome lens for the price to me.

actually there are a few more reasons but if you think the 17-40 is awesome on a crop take a look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 - Nirvana² !

mhazlett wrote in post #12201048
So the OP only has one reason to not get this lens for crop, because IS is useless at this focal length, and its a pretty standard zoom on a 1.6. Unless you really need that one stop, sounds like an awesome lens for the price to me.

how's IS useless...

DreDaze wrote in post #12202688
how's IS useless...

On a shorter focal length it isn't as necessary because the lens can be hand held at lower shutter speeds.

I see a few reasons to buy the 17-40L over the 17-55 - For one, it is an L lens. Two, it is an EF lens. Three, it offers a similar field of view on a cop as the 17-55 except for cheaper than the 17-55. Four, it is built better. Five, the 50mm end can be had with a 50 1.4 or 1.8. Six, the Canon 17-55 is expensive and some people are afraid of sigma, tokina, and tamron - making the 17-40 a no brainer.

Forwards compatibility is a big deal for some people. Why spend $800 on a lens that won't work for you on a different body, or a newer body?

sbattey wrote in post #12202722
I see a few reasons to buy the 17-40L over the 17-55 - For one, it is an L lens. Two, it is an EF lens. Three, it offers a similar field of view on a cop as the 17-55 except for cheaper than the 17-55. Four, it is built better. Five, the 50mm end can be had with a 50 1.4 or 1.8. Six, the Canon 17-55 is expensive and some people are afraid of sigma, tokina, and tamron - making the 17-40 a no brainer.

I can think of a few reasons to not buy the 17-40 L on a crop. For one, that sharpness issue!
www.photozone.de
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=1
and two, it has a very limited focal range,

and three, it's "slow" compared to equivalent Sigma, Tamron and Canon 17-55 2.8

sbattey wrote in post #12202722
On a shorter focal length it isn't as necessary because the lens can be hand held at lower shutter speeds.

i know that...but not necessary, and useless are two different things...say you're shooting a landscape that you happen to see while driving...no tripod, nothing around to brace against...you're using slow shutter speeds...the IS is useful there...i know people will say they can handhold at slow shutters without IS...yeah that's great...but you can handhold even slower with IS...

sbattey wrote in post #12202722
Forwards compatibility is a big deal for some people. Why spend $800 on a lens that won't work for you on a different body, or a newer body?

because it works for what they have now...say the person buying the lens has no interest in UWA shooting...so they upgrade to a ff camera, and then now have an UWA that they have no need for...

Considering this lens for my 50D. Have tried it out in a few stores on a 7D and a 5DII and really liked it. I guess I'm still confused as to why NOT to buy it. Yes, I plan to go FF in the next few years, as well as 1.3 crop on a 1D body in the next few months. I want UWA and want a constant aperture over my 15-85, which yes is an amazing lens but I want a constant aperture.

StayLucky wrote in post #12488875
Considering this lens for my 50D. Have tried it out in a few stores on a 7D and a 5DII and really liked it. I guess I'm still confused as to why NOT to buy it. Yes, I plan to go FF in the next few years, as well as 1.3 crop on a 1D body in the next few months. I want UWA and want a constant aperture over my 15-85, which yes is an amazing lens but I want a constant aperture.

why not one of the f2.8 zooms then if you want a constant aperture...as i think i pointed out before...the 15-85mm i think is f4 until 37mm...so you won't be really gaining any speed with the L...if you want a constant aperture f4 lens that only goes to 40mm...set your lens to f4, and rig up a way to not shoot past 40mm on your current lens...

edit...just saw the few months, at first i only saw the next few years...then go for it

DreDaze wrote in post #12489014
why not one of the f2.8 zooms then if you want a constant aperture...as i think i pointed out before...the 15-85mm i think is f4 until 37mm...so you won't be really gaining any speed with the L...if you want a constant aperture f4 lens that only goes to 40mm...set your lens to f4, and rig up a way to not shoot past 40mm on your current lens...

edit...just saw the few months, at first i only saw the next few years...then go for it

I also have the eos-1 film body which I currently don't have a lens for so it could also serve double duty on both bodies.