Should I buy the Canon 17-40L?

I have been on the fence about buying the 17-40L lens for quite some time. I shoot a 40D and I have a Tamron 17-50 (non vc) as my main lens. I mainly shoot nightlife and weddings (You can look at my Flickr and my website for samples of what I shoot.) I know that I will be losing the 2.8 capabilities and the extra 10mm of the Tamron but I have been wanting to own an 'L' lens and I am looking to move to full frame in the future. I heard a lot of good things about the 17-40L and this has peaked my interest

I just want to know if I should just keep the Tamron and save my money or just get the 17-40L.

Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!

Don't do that. Buy the 17-40L if you have a fullframe. At weddings 2.8 is a lot more comfortable than an 4.0 aperture. The 17-50 lens is the better one on a crop body.

Dont do it. The 17-40 is the starter L for many people. But there are just better alternatives if you are using a crop body. On Full Frame its a great ultrawide, but on a crop its a fairly mundane F4 lens in a range that is duplicated by better options.

No! Don't do it. EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM will be much better for you. Plus they really hold their resale value. So you can 'upgrade' to 17-40 when you upgrade your body. althought 24-70 will be the equivalent on FF and 17-40 will be muich wider!

Twin Turbo wrote in post #16647175
I have been on the fence about buying the 17-40L lens for quite some time. I shoot a 40D and I have a Tamron 17-50 (non vc) as my main lens. I mainly shoot nightlife and weddings (You can look at my Flickr and my website for samples of what I shoot.) I know that I will be losing the 2.8 capabilities and the extra 10mm of the Tamron but I have been wanting to own an 'L' lens and I am looking to move to full frame in the future. I heard a lot of good things about the 17-40L and this has peaked my interest

I just want to know if I should just keep the Tamron and save my money or just get the 17-40L.

Any and all information would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!

Heya,

It would be literally pointless for you to get the 17-40 F4L based on what you said you're wanting. Note that `L' glass is not all made equal. Honestly some of the minor `L zooms are just not even all that fantastic. You're being sucked into the red-ring-hype. Get `L glass if it specifically meets your needs. In your case, you're giving up what you need, for a red ring, and a lot of stuff you don't need.

If you want an honest upgrade, in sharpness, and aperture, the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is the zoom to look at in this price range for your crop.

Very best,

17-40 is completely pointless on a crop sensor. For about the same money, you can get 17-55 2.8 IS, which has faster aperture, IS, bigger range and probably the same IQ.

Unless you shoot in the rain, dust storm and need a standard zoom for 7D. (because it's weather sealed).

Another vote against the 17-40L. It is a good lens but for a crop camera IMO any 17-50mm f/2.8 is going to be better for nightlife than the 17-40. Though I'd rather get a 17-50mm f/2.8 with stabilization.

your 17-50 will perform better for you than the 17-40. Keep what you have until you move to FF; and upgrade then.

As others have said, the 17-40L makes no sense for you now based on what you shoot. Also, keep in mind that this lens will have a much different field of view if you ever move to full frame -- similar to what the EFS 10-22 would provide on your current camera body. So, if you do not feel like you need anything wider than the 17-50 f/2.8 on your current setup, buying a 17-40L now for a possible future move to full frame makes even less sense.

Twin Turbo wrote in post #16647175
I just want to know if I should just keep the Tamron and save my money or just get the 17-40L.

Save your money. I wouldn't bother buying a 17-40L. I would keep your Tamron until you do upgrade your camera body.

The problem about the 17-40L is that it is an acceptable ultra wide for a full frame, but, doesn't do it for me as a standard zoom on an APS-C sensor.

Also consider that when you do go full frame, there might be other options for the ultra wide angle role. Maybe Canon will finally come out with a 14-24/2.8L to compete with Nikon's. There's also the Tokina 16-28/2.8 which compares well against the 16-35L.

If you really want L glass *right now*, invest in a 70-200/4L IS or 70-300L.

If you really want an L lens, and want to stay in the same budget, get the 24-105. At least you'll gain 55mm, rather than lose 10mm. It also is a good lens to fill the gap if you ever get a tele (70-Xmm).

Or, like marcosv says above, get a 70-200.

L addiction solved (for now)

Going against the grain here, but I have had my 17-40 for about 7 years and LOVE IT!
Yes it is a lovely lens. No it's not too sharp and it isn't the right tool for weddings, but when you go full frame this is a really fun lens to use, especially if you can get really close. It also produces the best colour of any of my Canon L lenses (from 17 to 800mm).

johnf3f wrote in post #16648679
Going against the grain here, but I have had my 17-40 for about 7 years and LOVE IT!
Yes it is a lovely lens. No it's not too sharp and it isn't the right tool for weddings, but when you go full frame this is a really fun lens to use, especially if you can get really close. It also produces the best colour of any of my Canon L lenses (from 17 to 800mm).

Nobody said the 17-40 was a bad lens, just that it was not the right lens for what the OP shoots and his camera.

If you read the entire post, he is asking if it would be better for him (the OP). He HAS a 17-50mm f/3.8. It would not be beneficial for him to pick up an f/4 for what he shoots, when he has that range plus already covered with an f/2.8. This is especially true since he says he shoots mainly nightlife and weddings.

I would say when he goes FF then he might look into the 17-40, but based on what he shoots he should save for a 16-35mm f/2.8. IMO he is going to want at least an f/2.8 if he wants to use that range for those venues.

If the OP was looking to upgrade to a FF real soon and did not have the 17-50, then I might agree with you. Though I still thing a f/2.8 would be better.

10-22

stop your 17-50mm down to f4, and don't allow yourself to go past 40mm...you'll save a lot of money