Combo 17-40 + 70-200 F/4 for Crop

I'm on a crop body (60D) and sorta starting fresh for new lenses. Unfortunately as things turned out my budget for now has been smashed to bits. So here I am thinking of the least expensive worthy combo I can pick up. I already have a Sigma 10-20 and a nifty 50mm.

My current budget is around $1000 (+/- $200) and my first thoughts are a 17-40 F/4 along with a 70-200 F/4 (non IS) used.

Having read through the forums, the general concensus is the 17-40 sucks on a crop body but I've yet to read into and figure out why. If it's because it's not wide enough then that's not really an issue since I already have the UWA for my crop body. I'm looking for something cheap but sturdy. And I do plan to get a FF body in the future so it's not for no reason.

Having further read into things, I've thought about the Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 (with OS) which is better on paper than the 17-40 but how does it do (I know this is not compat with FF like the 17-40, but besides that) quality wise; Build and image quality?

Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated.

tman2782 wrote in post #12616117
Having read through the forums, the general concensus is the 17-40 sucks on a crop body but I've yet to read into and figure out why. .

a couple of clues for you:

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

I think those lenses will work out just fine for you. Both are constant f/4 lenses. That is nice. Great optics. At 200mm IS is not that critical. Just keep your shutter speed up. Typically 1/focal length, so 1/200 sec. Make it a little faster if you are having holding it really steady. No slower than 1/60sec for the wider focal lengths. Being L lenses they will hold their value really well. You should be able to sell these two lenses for close to what you are going to pay for them in the future when you feel the need to upgrade.

Have you thought about the 50mm f/1.8 prime? These go for around $125. Great optics. A good lens to start off with.

Any lens will not net 100% sharp, have no chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. These are great lenses.

You could also look into Sigma lenses. Perhaps save some more money. They are great for the cost savings. But that extra for the Canon does show. Maybe not proportional to the cost difference. You do get what you pay for. If money was no issue for you you would be getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and 24-70mm f/2.8 most probably. ;P

Happy shooting.

The 17-40 does not suck on crop, there are just lenses that offer more for the money. 17-55 for example: IS and a larger aperture for not much more money. If you are fine with f/4 and want the better build, weather sealing, and internal zoom, then the 17-40 is right for you.

Some people think I'm crazy for using a 16-35 on crop. But the matter is it's the right tool for my jobs.

Exactly. The 17-55 is $1150 new. The 17-40 is $800 new. Taxes not included. Big difference. If money was no problem and we all shoot on crops then we would all have the 17-55. OP was mentioning the $1k money restraint.

17-40 is good on any camera but since it's a full frame lens there are other options that offer more that are made specifically for aps-c. Tamron 17-50 2.8 or sigma 17-70 canon 17-55 or 15-85 all are good lenses

tman2782 wrote in post #12616117
I'm on a crop body (60D) and sorta starting fresh for new lenses. Unfortunately as things turned out my budget for now has been smashed to bits. So here I am thinking of the least expensive worthy combo I can pick up. I already have a Sigma 10-20 and a nifty 50mm.

My current budget is around $1000 (+/- $200) and my first thoughts are a 17-40 F/4 along with a 70-200 F/4 (non IS) used.

Having read through the forums, the general concensus is the 17-40 sucks on a crop body but I've yet to read into and figure out why. If it's because it's not wide enough then that's not really an issue since I already have the UWA for my crop body. I'm looking for something cheap but sturdy. And I do plan to get a FF body in the future so it's not for no reason.

Having further read into things, I've thought about the Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 (with OS) which is better on paper than the 17-40 but how does it do (I know this is not compat with FF like the 17-40, but besides that) quality wise; Build and image quality?

Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated.

Well I can say that I had the 17-40L and then I got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC and after a couple weeks I sold the 17-40L! Tamron had an extra 10mm of reach which is very nice, has f/2.8, is smaller and lighter, is perhaps a bit sharper at edges, it did slightly better for me overall on a real world photo hike. The L had a tiny bit better color/contrast in the center (although a bit worse at the edges) and that was it. Well and the L also had quieter AF. And the tamron costs a lot less. With the money saved you could get other neat stuff or at least be well on the way to it.

The 15-85 might be interesting for the wide range and IS.

Anyway I"d rather put money saved from tamron over L and tamron is better overall IMO anyway to maybe 70-200 f/4 IS, IS can really help at those focal lengths and f/4 is not that fast! That is one amazing lens!

tman2782 wrote in post #12616117
Having read through the forums, the general concensus is the 17-40 sucks on a crop body but I've yet to read into and figure out why. If it's because it's not wide enough then that's not really an issue since I already have the UWA for my crop body. I'm looking for something cheap but sturdy.

It's not that it sucks, it's just that the various other options are also quite good and amazingly cheap, and sometimes have other advantages like a larger aperture and IS.

This might put things into perspective.
17-40L + 18-55 IS, 18mm @ F/4: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1
17-40L + 18-55 IS, 35mm @ F/5.6: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=1

Is it worthy of the price difference? Of course there are more attributes than pure sharpness, whether it's AF or weather sealing or you just like the sturdy feel of it, all quite justified if that's what you're after.

I have 70-200 F4 on 500D, works perfect and compatible with cheap TC.
I'll skip 17-40 F4 for 60D.

I would suggest you look at a used Canon 15-85 and a Tamron 70-300 VC. Both would be under $1,100. The Tamron gets very good reviews, has great range, and has IS.

The budget, yet still good IQ option would be a used 18-135 IS and a 55-250 IS for under $500 for both.

Tommydigi wrote in post #12616226
17-40 is good on any camera but since it's a full frame lens there are other options that offer more that are made specifically for aps-c. Tamron 17-50 2.8 or sigma 17-70 canon 17-55 or 15-85 all are good lenses

On FF, it's pretty darn soft in the corners unless you stop down past f/6.3. On APS-C, the 17-40 doesn't suffer from that... you lose that ultra-wide capability, but if you're already used to using the 18-55 kit lens...

Some of you have said that the 17-40 doesn't suck on crop (which is a good thing for me I guess) but the real issue being that there are better options. But from what I can see (cost perspective) the only thing that is close enough is the Sigma 17-50mm which comes with OS and nets about the same price new as a 17-40 used.

In the ideal situation also on a sorta tight budget, I'd have gone with the 24-105mm and the 24-70 is cost was no issue. I will search around if I can try a 17-40 locally before I jump on it.

AbPho wrote in post #12616196
Have you thought about the 50mm f/1.8 prime? These go for around $125. Great optics. A good lens to start off with.

Yup, as I mentioned I already got this along with the Sigma 10-20. The 50 almost converted me to primes, but I guess unless you're shooting with two bodies, having just primes is going to be a pain.

wombatHorror wrote in post #12617805
...the tamron costs a lot less. With the money saved you could get other neat stuff or at least be well on the way to it.

True, that is an option. Not sure if it's the L fix that Canonite suffer from but I was mainly looking at it from a build and AF performance point of view. But like I said, I'm strongly considering the Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 with OS.

phreeky wrote in post #12617856
Is it worthy of the price difference? Of course there are more attributes than pure sharpness, whether it's AF or weather sealing or you just like the sturdy feel of it, all quite justified if that's what you're after.

Weather sealing isn't high on my priority since my 60D isn't sealed and won't help much, but am definitely looking for something sturdy and fast AF. The good thing is that I have the 18-55's and the sort readily available to try should I need one, but not quite sure how these will last in a constant use scenario.

wilerty wrote in post #12617939
The budget, yet still good IQ option would be a used 18-135 IS and a 55-250 IS for under $500 for both.

Is the IQ near as good as those on the L's and what about AF performance? I had the 18-135mm kit lens and I didn't think the AF was fast enough and my biggest issue with it was it felt brittle. A couple of times I've managed to 'tap' it on the floor or table etc while shooting and it felt like if I'd done it slightly harder it would just break into pieces. I'm a bit wary of going for budget lenses unless it's primes since I've not churned those waters and hence I got the nifty fifty. But for my daily usage I want lenses I know will last and those I wouldn't need to sell later when I decide to get an extra body.

Does IS work when using the 70-200 on an Extender? Also I notice the F/4 IS is not listed as compatible with the 2x?

tman2782 wrote in post #12618629
Does IS work when using the 70-200 on an Extender? Also I notice the F/4 IS is not listed as compatible with the 2x?

Only 1D bodies will AF with an f/8 lens. The 2x will take the 70-200 down two stops to 140-400 f/8. IS still works with extenders.