17-40 vs 17-55 is it optical compromise

My current situation in Canon is that I don't own UWA for either crop or FF. I have both 7D and 5DM2. In Canon mount I have lenses listed in my signature.

One thing I could do is to trade my Canon 17-55 EF-S, which I am using with 7D for 17-40. 17-40 then can serve double duty for me, it can be a normal zoom on 7D (17-40) and at same time it can serve as UWA on my 5DM2. And I probably can pocket about $200 in difference. However, I don't want to compromise picture quality too much in sake of convenience. is 17-40 vs 17-55IS too much of a compromise on Crop, from sharpness standpoint. I am not that concerned with losing 15mm, as I have 50mm 1.8II and 40mm pancake on order. But picture quality I am concerned with.

Use your the search feature - https://photography-on-the.net …&highlight=17-40+vs+17-55

Everything you need

this may help http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Co​mparison-Tools.aspx

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14568870
Use your the search feature - https://photography-on-the.net …&highlight=17-40+vs+17-55

Everything you need

Thanks I read that thread you referred to,

unfortunately, it was far from 'everything I need'. In fact, it told me nothing. Other than one person in a very amateurish language thinks that 17-55 is sharper but the next person thinks that 17-40 has much better colors and faster autofocus.

colintf wrote in post #14568891
this may help http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Co​mparison-Tools.aspx

I've read that review several times before. Still soliciting more opinions.

What about IQ comparison:

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

And reviews:

http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_1740_4_50d?start​=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1755_28is_5​0d?start=2

I haven't used the 17-55 myself but I've had the 17-40 for about 5 years now on the 5Dc. It is an excellent lens and has produced museum quality images for me. I regularly do my own 13x19 printing for exhibition. It is lightweight, somewhat compact, mildly slow at f/4 but that won't be an issue with your two bodies.

Every Canon lens I've used has some degree of barrel distortion but this has never been an issue for my landscape, wedding and social event work. For architectural lines it is easily correcible with s/w if that is an issue. Yes, the charts will show numbers - but with today's design computers the obvious "dogs" quickly reveal themselves. This is not one of them .

Bottom line - if you were examining side-by-side prints from either lens under real world viewing circumstances I believe you would have a very hard time telling them apart. Absolutic, I think that is a decent lens strategy and that you don't have to worry about compromising image.

I have tried both and I still prefer the 17-55 IS on a 1.6 crop. Much more useful on a crop. I would just have both if you are planning to keep a crop camera.

sapearl wrote in post #14568996
I haven't used the 17-55 myself but I've had the 17-40 for about 5 years now on the 5Dc. It is an excellent lens and has produced museum quality images for me. I regularly do my own 13x19 printing for exhibition. It is lightweight, somewhat compact, mildly slow at f/4 but that won't be an issue with your two bodies.

Every Canon lens I've used has some degree of barrel distortion but this has never been an issue for my landscape, wedding and social event work. For architectural lines it is easily correcible with s/w if that is an issue. Yes, the charts will show numbers - but with today's design computers the obvious "dogs" quickly reveal themselves. This is not one of them .

Bottom line - if you were examining side-by-side prints from either lens under real world viewing circumstances I believe you would have a very hard time telling them apart. Absolutic, I think that is a decent lens strategy and that you don't have to worry about compromising image.

Sounds great. Just can't bring myself to pay for both 17-40 and 17-55, two lenses covering seemingly the same range, costing $1000 and $800

Look on the FS board here, 17-40's come up all the time... I got mine for 500 shipped and it's a 9/10

absolutic wrote in post #14569052
Sounds great. Just can't bring myself to pay for both 17-40 and 17-55, two lenses covering seemingly the same range, costing $1000 and $800

I understand how you feel - I'm amazed how much pricing has increased too. Back in 2007 I paid $640 new for my 17-40 from the local store. But dsit995 offers some good advice - the FS board here has made a lot of folks happy over time .

Ever thought of consolidating 7D and 5D2 into 5D3. No EF-S option, no decision problem.
For practical purposes IQ between 17-40L and 17-55 is on par. It boils down to extra stop and IS on one and FF compatibility, better build and weather sealing on another.

Between the two it's really more if you need the IS and the extra stop.

IQ wise they're pretty much right there next to each other.

I know this isn't one of your options but how about the 16-35 that's if you need the 2.8?

I currently have a 5D2 and 7D like you, and what I love about the 17-40 is that it's like having two lens when I switch between the two bodies.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14569117
Ever thought of consolidating 7D and 5D2 into 5D3. No EF-S option, no decision problem.
For practical purposes IQ between 17-40L and 17-55 is on par. It boils down to extra stop and IS on one and FF compatibility, better build and weather sealing on another.

That thought has crossed my mind.... To consolidate...

The 17-55 EF-S lenses were specifically designed to be used on a crop body’s taking into consideration all the differential factors that exist between FF and 1.6(x)

The 17-40L is a wonderful lens; however, it will never deliver the same IQ on the 7D as will the 17-55, nor will it allow you to shoot at f/2.8.

IF you need to shoot at f/2.8 the decision is mute; the differential quality loss when using the 17-40 on your 7D will be minimal, at best. Should your subject matter demand you maintain the absolute highest IQ in your imagery, then it would behoove you to have both.

I love my 17-50 but would not hesitate to opt for the 17-40 if I were in your situation needing one lens to serve two bodies.