The Canon EF 17-40mm on a crop camera?

Hello!

I'm considering getting the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, its gonna replace my 18-55 kit lens from the 1000D kit.

It costs around $1000, and it will be my first L lens.
How do it perform compared to Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens f/3.5-5.6, is it worth the money?

I'd get the 17-55 F2.8 for the same or slightly more money or the 15-85 for around $650. Any dust accumulation in these can be removed by any guy that can change the oil on his car (or maybe more appropriately, change the battery in his watch ), and the added focal range and aperture would be a plus for a crop. They are not of L build quality but have very good build quality and image stabilization as well.


some comparison shots

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=3


http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

The kit lens with IS is a very capable lens however. Sometimes I question the need to upgrade from it at all unless you need the wider aperture of the 2.8... although yes, both the 15-85 and 17-55 are sharper then the kit. But you'll be hard pressed to notice unless you pixel peep and blow the images way up. But hey, I bought a DSLR and I wanna pixel peep darn it all!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

The 17-40 is a pretty good lens and includes weathersealing. However I would agree that if you can spend a little bit more and don't need the sealing that the 17-55 is an excellent lens. It's one stop faster, has IS, and a little more range.

Well the weather sealing might not be that bad.
I'm thinking about taking some courses in press photography when I get a 5D MK2 or a 7D. But that might take a year, so I might as well upgrade my lenses when I have the money, and right now I feel like I can spend $1000 on a lens .

If you haven't already, search around for some reviews on the lenses to get some additional input. Sites like slrgear.com, photozone.de, etc. have some decent reviews. Keep in mind that that is only one piece of the puzzle. Your specific uses and needs are most important. Without knowing what other lenses you own I would say that having an f/2.8 lens versus an f/4 would be very appealing. I have a couple of primes for low light and shallow depth of field shots but for a while my fastest lens was f/4 and it was somewhat limiting, specifically indoors.

I agree that the 17-55 2.8 IS is a better fit for a crop body. You get extra reach, 2.8, and IS. But you should be able to find the 17-40 for around $600 used if you look.

I should probably mention that I already have a 18-200mm Tamron and a 50mm 1.8 . So I cover the focal length .
I also started saving up for a fullframe dslr, at my birthday next year I can afford it, lol .
So I'm really just looking for an upgrade in quality and image sharpness, if that changes anything?

N1CK wrote in post #12290656
I should probably mention that I already have a 18-200mm Tamron and a 50mm 1.8 . So I cover the focal length .
I also started saving up for a fullframe dslr, at my birthday next year I can afford it, lol .
So I'm really just looking for an upgrade in quality and image sharpness, if that changes anything?

If you are going FF then forget that 17-55, it's an EF-S so it won't work on FF. The 17-40 is a good choice. I have been toying with the idea of either that one or the 16-35, but it's twice the price of the 17-40.

N1CK wrote in post #12289918
Hello!

I'm considering getting the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, its gonna replace my 18-55 kit lens from the 1000D kit.

It costs around $1000, and it will be my first L lens.
How do it perform compared to Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens f/3.5-5.6, is it worth the money?

The 17-40 is not a good choice for a crop, the focal range is limited, it is "slow" and is not sharp on a crop model, at least compared to the Sigma 17-50 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Canon 17-55 2.8, etc.
see http://www.photozone.d​e
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=1

The 17-40 certainly would be an upgrade from the kit lens. Ifyoure concerned about IQ, seems like a good choice.

I haven't really used my 17-40 on the 40D yet, but it could certainly be an option if you are also toying with the idea of adding or upgrading to FF later on. If you don't, I'd take a look at the crop options. They offer more range and one stop better with at least the same - or probably better IQ wide open.

The argument for getting the 17-40 if you plan on getting a crop camera has two potential issues. If you are not planning on going full frame in the near future, then with the tendency for both lenses to hold their value get the one you can use now. Also keep in mind that the 17-40 transforms into something completely different mounted on a full frame camera, it goes from walkaround lens to ultra wide zoom.

Well, I'm planning to get a FF camera.
I only earn around $1000 each month because I study, so that's the reason it will take a year of savings. So it's near future for me, at least .

N1CK wrote in post #12290934
Well, I'm planning to get a FF camera.
I only earn around $1000 each month because I study, so that's the reason it will take a year of savings. So it's near future for me, at least .

A lot of folks claim they are going full frame, and most of them mean it, but since these lenses have actually been going up in value lately there is no reason not to buy the best lens for a crop, use it for a year or two, or however long it takes to go FF, then sell it and upgrade to whatever you need. As long as you shop with a modicum of common sense you wont lose out.

I think you are overestimating the cost.. HERE is the price from B&H, which will be open for business tomorrow... However I don't know where you are in the world.....

The 17-40 was the first lens I bought for my 20D. It preformed beautifully on that crop camera. Beautiful color and IQ. I now use it on a 5D classic and I still get wonderful results and an even wider FOV. Another plus is that it is extreamly light weight.