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

[QUOTE=TijmenDal;11993​547] The Tamron is faster, cheaper and has a longer focal length. Why would anyone even want a 17-40?
Please enlighten me![/q

I DON'T HAVE ANY USE FOR THE 17-40L ON A CROP CAMERA because:

1. Although it is a "reasonably nice" wide zoom on a full-frame camera, it is more of a mid-range zoom on a crop camera.

2. At f/4, it is far too slow for me to use as my mid-range zoom without IS assistance.

3. With a maximum focal length of 40mm it is too short to use as my mid-range zoom.

Why do people use it on a 1.4x crop camera? IMO - RED RING SNOB APPEAL.

I have had one and have gotten rid of it! I tried matching it with a 70-200mm f/4L lens on a pair of cameras and hated the combination. The 40-70mm gap was just to large for me to comfortably work with...

Wow, so much hate. I love my 17-40 even on my *GASP* crop body. Works fantastic for what I use it for, colors and IQ are great and it didn't break the bank. Great for a lot of the auto shows I cover, street stuff when I travel and otherwise a great all around lens to complement the range I own. Not to mention, everything is covered under my Canon Professional Services account so I can have one single place for support and repair for everything I own. This is just as important as anything else to me.

I don't get the "might upgrade to FF one day" argument.

If you use it on FF, then it is an UWA. You're not using it that way on crop, so are you all of a sudden changing your shooting style when you do upgrade?

phreeky wrote in post #11993776
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.

Some people may choose the Canon 17-40 because it has better build quality, better resale, quicker focusing and quieter focusing. I guess it just depends on what is most important for your style of photography.

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!

Sorry, I can't enlighten you other than agreeing it doesn't make sense. Maybe the magical power of the red ring strikes some people or maybe the old "going full frame someday" thinking is rationalized.

More reasons why I chose the lense for my needs. What business is it of anyone elses anyway why I bought what equipment I bought? If it serves MY purposes well, who is anyone else to tell me it's stupid?

norf wrote in post #11994104
Some people may choose the Canon 17-40 because it has better build quality, better resale, quicker focusing and quieter focusing. I guess it just depends on what is most important for your style of photography.

zerinS4 wrote in post #11994121
More reasons why I chose the lense for my needs. What business is it of anyone elses anyway why I bought what equipment I bought? If it serves MY purposes well, who is anyone else to tell me it's stupid?

I don't think anyone is telling you it's a stupid decision, it just a decision that seems to make little sense.

(Or maybe that's the same thing!)

m.shalaby wrote in post #11993681
the fastest UWA that I know of is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - its made for crop users.

An UWA lens isn't really intended for low-light/indoor conditions anyway. Of course it might be used at night, but that would be in combination with a tripod anyway. I wouldn't really care for a big aperture on an UWA, the Canon 10-22 would be enough for me.

phreeky wrote in post #11993776
Because then they can put a stupid red "L" in their signature.

I really think this might be quite an important factor.

deanedward wrote in post #11993957
hmm... i guess the 17-40 still gives off very good colors and contrast despite its handicaps.

I'm not debating that it's or isn't a good lens, it's just that the conditions need to be better to get a good result, lighting being the most important one.

Willie wrote in post #11994068
I don't get the "might upgrade to FF one day" argument.

If you use it on FF, then it is an UWA. You're not using it that way on crop, so are you all of a sudden changing your shooting style when you do upgrade?

Really good argument!

I love the 17-40, first L lens I purchased and I still use it on both my 5D2 and 7D, which a sharp lens, even at f4.

For some people, its combination of features is just right. For others, it isn't...just like every single lens out there. Of course, you found arguments against it, but that doesn't mean it's a pointless lens for crops. It just means it's a pointless lens for crops for you.

As I posted in another thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11937050#po​st11937050

I'm not trying to say it's the best everyone should have it, as it's certainly not for everyone, but it definitely has its merits and to some people, it's the right choice. For me, I wouldn't buy one as it wouldn't be an upgrade worth double the resale value of my Tamron 17-50 (and because I use f/2.8 all the time), but there's no doubt that on the 17-40 color reproduction was better and focus was faster and better in low light. Not to mention it's more solidly-built and is weather resistant.

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?

Many photographers only need the "short range" for a wide-angle lens.

The lack of IS (Image Stabilization) is often not an issue at all with shorter focal lengths when the photographer has been trained to hold a camera steadily.

I sometimes use a 16-35 f/2.8L and frequently use a 24-70 f/2.8L on my 20D, for example, and have never once wished it had IS for either lens. I am also kinda old and still don't have any problems holding the camera steadily.

That said, I definitely appreciate the IS feature on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, especially when I put my 1.4X extender between it and my camera.

Technique, ability, and experience is going to have more to do with overcoming poor conditions than the difference between the 17-40 and another similar lens.

TijmenDal wrote in post #11994142
I'm not debating that it's or isn't a good lens, it's just that the conditions need to be better to get a good result, lighting being the most important one.

I have both a Crop and a FF camera The Tramron is nice however it is loud and does not work well on the FF camera.
That is why I got the 17-40 I have used both the Tamron and Own the Canon. Both have different uses

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!

I went through entire 17-40 F4 photo archive thread few months ago. Not so many posts with 1.6 sensors cameras.
I remember one person at this forum who used to have T1i and went for 17-40 FL to do portraits with it.
I see absolutely no reason for 17-40 F4 on crop sensors camera, except on 50D, 7D if you like to shot under rain and snow.
I know one person with 30D and Tamron lens you mentioned.
She is using this combo for HDR a lot and in the studio.
http://www.kateskrylev​a.com/albums/

Because I can play with it in the rain/snow if I want to.

Seriously though, if it doesn't work for you fine but why bother starting a thread pissing and moaning about why others shouldn't like it?

What's next, someone starting a thread telling me how wrong I was to to spend $580 on a film camera last summer?