17-40 f4 -OR- 24 f1.4 / 35 f1.4

I've noticed that most of the shots I've taken with my 17-55 f2.8 are taken at around 30mm.. I like the idea of having/upgrading to L series lens, just in case one day I go full frame.

My question is, how much better is the
a) the 17-40 - Cheaper, gives me a bit of zoom, only f4
b) the 24 or 35 - More expensive - Never really used a prime, even to I have a 50mm, feels too zoomed - f1.4

Is a L series prime that much sharper than a L series 17-40?

Yes. 35L is much shaper than the 17-40

Yes 24L is better than the others

Your current EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is a fine lens, and compares very well optically with the 17-40L. The only things keeping it from being designated an "L" are the build quality and the fact the Canon will never label an EFS lens as "L". I would never trade it out for a 17-40L while you are shooting strictly with a crop body. If you ever move to a full frame body, your field of view for the 17-40L would change dramatically over what it provides on a crop body. It becomes a ultra-wide angle to slightly wider than "normal" on full frame, while it is a wide angle to barely short telephoto on a crop.

The 17-40L offers nothing for a 1.6X shooter over the 17-55 you have now other than better performance relative to veiling flare.

Selling the 17-55 for a 17-40 "Just in case I one day go full frame" makes no sense for two reasons:

1) You can sell the 17-55 along with your 1.6X body on that same day that you "go full frame". Why move to less than optimal lenses now for a body change that may or may not happen on a timeline that you have not established yet?

2) When you do 'go full frame' then the lens that most closely matches the FOV and DOF of the 17-55 that you have on a FF camera is the EF 24-105/4L. The 17-40 on a FF camera is an UWA zoom lens. So you don't buy an EF lens to use as a wide-normal zoom today so that you don't have to replace it on FF......because you will still have to replace it because it is going to feel like a totally different lens on a FF camera.

Finally.....I think purchasing very expensive L primes for use on FF cameras soon looks economically lousy considering how cheaply FF bodies can be gotten now.

Take the EF 24/1.4L II that you mentioned. That's a very expensive lens and on a 1.6X body it will give the FOV and DOF that can be achieved with something like a 35/2 on a FF body. Perhaps one L prime for a specific look....but by the time you are thinking of 2 or 3 focal lengths then you can get more done for less with a larger format camera and some moderate fast primes.

I haven't used my 17-40L after getting the 24mm f/1.4L II. It's been at least a year now. I don't miss the 17-40L at all.

DOuFINKimSEXY wrote in post #16480067
I've noticed that most of the shots I've taken with my 17-55 f2.8 are taken at around 30mm.. I like the idea of having/upgrading to L series lens, just in case one day I go full frame.

Just in case? Save your money and buy either Sigma 30 Art or Canon 35 IS.

Yes. You get what you pay for.

Thanks for the advise guys!

Makes sense, no point buying something super expensive while I still have the 1.6x - crop.
WHEN and IF I go FF I could always consider my options then..

So it looks like I should consider something like a Canon 35mm f2 IS

kawi_200 wrote in post #16482427
I haven't used my 17-40L after getting the 24mm f/1.4L II. It's been at least a year now. I don't miss the 17-40L at all.

At that price point might as well get the 24-70mm II 2.8, it's performance is comparable with the 24mm 1.4 II and it's far more versatile. See the comparison here. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

And 24mm often isn't wide enough,neither is 17mm for that matter so I have recently obtained a 14mm II 2.8.

The EF 24mm f/1.4L II is the lens I'd most love to buy. I am about $1800 short at the moment. But it would give me exactly what I need on my 5D, a very fast, wide-normal lens, that: distorts a BUNCH less than the 24-70 II, is smaller and lighter than the 24-70 II, focuses much closer than the 24-70 II, and costs $500 less than the 24-70 II. It would also make a killer ~38mm prime for my 60D. Now, if I could only come up with $1800.

Mornnb wrote in post #16483227
At that price point might as well get the 24-70mm II 2.8, it's performance is comparable with the 24mm 1.4 II and it's far more versatile. See the comparison here. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

And 24mm often isn't wide enough,neither is 17mm for that matter so I have recently obtained a 14mm II 2.8.

Ironically the zoom range from 24-100mm isn't too important for me. It's not a range I find myself needing. I only have the 24-70mm f/4L because I traded my 1D3 for it. I've been using the 8-15L, 24L, and 40mm as my hiking pick. Working around the fisheye effect, or using LR's distort feature works very well for me.