Can't Decide

So i have $830 Budget and i'm getting the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. But now i'm having doubts. My Original idea was the 20mm 2.8 but it has been getting a lot of bad Reviews so the 17-40mm seems like the best choice on a Crop Sensor. 17mm is about right and anything under that is just too wide for my Taste. I was Recommended the EF-S 17-55mm but i want to move into Full frame early next year so that is not an option.

Now 24mm, although IS good, But too tight for my Crop Bodies, So the 24-105mm is not really an option either. I'm trying to get a Lens that holds up to the 50mm 1.4 in Contrast & Sharpness. Now Obviously Primes are Sharper. But i want something atleast close enough to it. So is the 17-40mm Close enough? I hear Contrast is great, But what about Sharpness? I hear mix Reviews on Sharpness. For example, Is it softer at 40mm compared to 17mm?

I can't stand the 18-55mm anymore so is the 17-40mm the right choice?

What do you not like about the 18-55 and how do you see yourself using the 17-40 on a full frame?

IMHO, you're compromising both your current use on a crop and your future use on a full frame. There are better 17-5X f/2.8 lenses on the market for your current camera, and a 24-70 would probably be better than the 17-40, depending on your use and budget, on FF. Which means you may well sell the 17-40 anyway.

Personally, I'd buy for the camera you have. If you want to save some cash, look for a used Sigma or Tamron 17-50. Actually, you can get either new within your budget.

I agree with markeb, there are better lenses in the 17-XX range for a crop camera. If you are going to be moving soon to a FF (or are also currently shooting with a film camera) then the 17-40L is an excellent choice.

IMO for most people a crop camera is to go with one of the off-brand 17-50mm with their version of image stabilizing. A zoom starting at 24mm could work for you depending on how you shoot, but as was stated many find it not wide enough.

markeb wrote in post #15400303
What do you not like about the 18-55 and how do you see yourself using the 17-40 on a full frame?

IMHO, you're compromising both your current use on a crop and your future use on a full frame. There are better 17-5X f/2.8 lenses on the market for your current camera, and a 24-70 would probably be better than the 17-40, depending on your use and budget, on FF. Which means you may well sell the 17-40 anyway.

Personally, I'd buy for the camera you have. If you want to save some cash, look for a used Sigma or Tamron 17-50. Actually, you can get either new within your budget.

The 18-55mm is a Kit lens, It's cheaply made and Image Quality is really bad. It lacks Contrast, Color and Sharpness (Comparing it to my 50mm 1.4) But that's expected from a $50 Lens. So no complaints but i need something more Professional.

I mean i can always sell the 17-40mm and get the 24-105 as a Kit when i purchase the Full Frame Camera. So i don't mind waiting on the 24-105mm. I just see the 17-40mm as my best option for now. So i want to know if it holds up to the 50mm 1.4.

Moving to a full frame next year is the key to what you need to think about. You also said anything under 17 is too wide for your taste. Well wait till you get the 17-40 on a full frame, it is pretty wide! So much so that I rarely use mine on my 5DII, 24 is usually wide enough for me. That said the 17-40 is a terrific lens for the money. I always say it is probably the best IQ per $$ value L lens on the market. As far as people saying it is crap on a crop body that is also a bit subjective, I like it on my 40D as well. In fact I like it better than I did my 15-85 when I had it, but that's just me. As for contrast and sharpness the 17-40 is good. Edge sharpness is not as good as centre sharpness, but again, not as bad a many make out either. The thing you need to remember is using a wide angle you are shooting at f/8 or higher anyway, so you are really in the sweet spot for sharpness. Good luck with your decision.

Have you tried looking through the lens archive to see if the sample images from the 17-40 are what you would be happy with?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1251516

L.J.G. wrote in post #15400383
Moving to a full frame next year is the key to what you need to think about. You also said anything under 17 is too wide for your taste. Well wait till you get the 17-40 on a full frame, it is pretty wide! So much so that I rarely use mine on my 5DII, 24 is usually wide enough for me. That said the 17-40 is a terrific lens for the money. I always say it is probably the best IQ per $$ value L lens on the market. As far as people saying it is crap on a crop body that is also a bit subjective, I like it on my 40D as well. In fact I like it better than I did my 15-85 when I had it, but that's just me. As for contrast and sharpness the 17-40 is good. Edge sharpness is not as good as centre sharpness, but again, not as bad a many make out either. The thing you need to remember is using a wide angle you are shooting at f/8 or higher anyway, so you are really in the sweet spot for sharpness. Good luck with your decision.

I hope your not saying I said the 17-40L is "cr-p" on a crop body, I didn't and wouldn't. It is a very nice lens (crop or FF) - I own it! What I said there were better choices than it for a crop body - with my suggestion being a Tamron/Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 VC/OS.

Reasoning
Why they both have very good optics and build quality (especially compared to the kit lens - which isn't all that bad if it is the IS version). They have an extra 10mm on the long end. They both have f/2.8 rather than f/4.0. They both have some sort of image stabilizing and the 17-40L does not. Finally they are both cheaper than the L.

If the OP is upgrading to a FF soon (or shoots film) then by all means forget about the crop lenses get the L instead (or a 24-XX). Otherwise I still think the crop lenses are the better choice.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #15399926
So i have $830 Budget and i'm getting the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. But now i'm having doubts. My Original idea was the 20mm 2.8 but it has been getting a lot of bad Reviews so the 17-40mm seems like the best choice on a Crop Sensor. 17mm is about right and anything under that is just too wide for my Taste. I was Recommended the EF-S 17-55mm but i want to move into Full frame early next year so that is not an option.

Now 24mm, although IS good, But too tight for my Crop Bodies, So the 24-105mm is not really an option either. I'm trying to get a Lens that holds up to the 50mm 1.4 in Contrast & Sharpness. Now Obviously Primes are Sharper. But i want something atleast close enough to it. So is the 17-40mm Close enough? I hear Contrast is great, But what about Sharpness? I hear mix Reviews on Sharpness. For example, Is it softer at 40mm compared to 17mm?

I can't stand the 18-55mm anymore so is the 17-40mm the right choice?

24mm in cropped body would be 38 in a full frame, really too tight for you ?

I would think 24 2.8 +50 1.4 would be a nice prime kit for for you.

I was not referring to you Jim, you do however see it mentioned many times.

Sorarse wrote in post #15400395
Have you tried looking through the lens archive to see if the sample images from the 17-40 are what you would be happy with?

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1251516

Yes i've been looking through that thread for a week. I'm Very impressed by the lens. It's hard to get a good judgement of Sharpness off Resized Images though.

vaflower wrote in post #15400476
24mm in cropped body would be 38 in a full frame, really too tight for you ?

I would think 24 2.8 +50 1.4 would be a nice prime kit for for you.

I set my 18-55mm to 24mm and it's just too close to the 50mm 1.4. I know it sounds crazy. But it's just too tight on a Crop Sensor for me.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #15400525
Yes i've been looking through that thread for a week. I'm Very impressed by the lens. It's hard to get a good judgement of Sharpness off Resized Images though.

I set my 18-55mm to 24mm and it's just too close to the 50mm 1.4. I know it sounds crazy. But it's just too tight on a Crop Sensor for me.

Loot at it for yourself

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

vaflower wrote in post #15400546
Loot at it for yourself

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

Yeah but isn't that JPEG? Not RAW?

DJHaze596 wrote in post #15400595
Yeah but isn't that JPEG? Not RAW?

he did all the pics in RAW. Very nice work of comparison. I only saw the comparison at 24mm focal length and as I saw it the prime is better up to F/8 and the room is also not that bad.

sharpness aside, look for color aberration. That in some ways is more important than sharpness.

Have been using the 17-40L for a long time and it's a cracker, on crop/ff it just pops. Contrast is great, sharp as a tack and as for colour rendition fantastic. I have a mate with the sigma equiv and I just does not cut the mustard. He tried the Tamron before getting the Sigma and was well dissapointed. If you can hire/borrow/steel one for a weekend(well not steel one) you will not be dissapointed at all.