17-40L users

Hi,

My advice is to get over the "L" bias and look at the 17-55 EF-S IS. It has more reach than the 17-40 L, has equal IQ, constant f/2.8, and IS to boot (which will help with the night shooting).

My 17-55MM EF-S IS is my walk around lens and generally stays on my 30D

Two drawbacks: it is EF-S and will not mount to a FF body, and it is not cheap. But you get what you pay for. I'll hold my 17-55MM EF-S IS copy up against any WA or mid-range "L" zoom lens.

Hm, now thats a lens and a half. Just read a quick review of it, and it just sounds perfect. It is a little out of my price range though, priced at £799 in the UK. Over £250 more expensive than the 17-40.

I would love to, but I don't think I can quite go that expensive! Thanks for pointing that lens out though, I missed that

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238772
Hm, now thats a lens and a half. Just read a quick review of it, and it just sounds perfect. It is a little out of my price range though, priced at £799 in the UK. Over £250 more expensive than the 17-40.

I would love to, but I don't think I can quite go that expensive! Thanks for pointing that lens out though, I missed that

Unless you have an immediate urgent need it would be worth your while to save a few weeks more and get the 17-55MM EF-S IS...from your description of what you want to shoot...it will do the job better than any other single option IMHO.

Very true, it is something for me to think over at least. I'll keep a watchful eye on eBay and may have to go and try one out at my local camera store (if they have one!)

The f2.8 and IS just sound stunning, it must be the most incredible thing in low-light, when you don't have a tripod!

Thanks!

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238791
Very true, it is something for me to think over at least. I'll keep a watchful eye on eBay and may have to go and try one out at my local camera store (if they have one!)

The f2.8 and IS just sound stunning, it must be the most incredible thing in low-light, when you don't have a tripod!

Thanks!

One quick example of my two lovely grand daughters

17-55MM EF-S IS: 1/30th, f/2.8, 18MM, ISO 1600 using the 30D

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Great photo, I've just been looking through some other threads and the IS is something else. I've been sent a PM regarding the 17-40 by someone on here, so I think I may go for that now.

Along with your 17-55, whats another lens of yours which you use often, as a walkabout? I see you own the 24-70L as well as the 70-200L, but with me, which ever lens I decide to go for (either 17-55 or 17-40) I couldn't see myself using a 24-70 all that often, do you?

Those who know me know I am a big fan of the 17-85 IS USM. For a crop camera, this is one of the few lenses with unrivalled versatility till the 17-55 2.8 IS showed up.

However, I do acknowledge one of the key shortcomings of my 17-85 is that it is very weak at 17-24mm. If you work this range a lot, you may be better off with the 17-40, which is absolutely awesome. I shoot the 17-40 on full frame and 1.3X crop, that is why I keep one, I have never believed in using it on a crop camera until recently where the quality just blew me away. Now I understand what I'd been missing.

It is still a tremendously tough call. If I could have only one choice for EF-S I would take the 17-85 because of versatility and stabilization. But for the best optical quality - 17-40L.

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238857
Great photo, I've just been looking through some other threads and the IS is something else. I've been sent a PM regarding the 17-40 by someone on here, so I think I may go for that now.

Along with your 17-55, whats another lens of yours which you use often, as a walkabout? I see you own the 24-70L as well as the 70-200L, but with me, which ever lens I decide to go for (either 17-55 or 17-40) I couldn't see myself using a 24-70 all that often, do you?

For walkaround lenses in order of preference: Canon 17-55MM, Sigma 30MM; Canon 10-22MM.

I use the 24-70 L for portriats when I want a zoom not a prime...and you are correct it does not get much use these days. Quite frankly if I had the 17-55MM EF-S IS first then I would never have purchased the 24-70 L. I use the 70-200 L for my grandkids soccer games and I am well pleased with it for that purpose.

Nice one, thanks for all your input.

Personally, I think that I am trying to achieve too much with one single lens, and I need to release that I have to have a good number of expensive lenses to get the best possible shots, which is something I've yet to get used to I think.

I've only own my 350d for about 5 months, so I am still a newbie by a long way!

You shouldn't be spending anywhere near £550 on a 17-40. Like I said I got mine for £430.

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238963
Nice one, thanks for all your input.

Personally, I think that I am trying to achieve too much with one single lens, and I need to release that I have to have a good number of expensive lenses to get the best possible shots, which is something I've yet to get used to I think.

I've only own my 350d for about 5 months, so I am still a newbie by a long way!

First of all a belated thanks for the nice comment on my picture

I spent two years building my kit and did a lot of research along the way including lots of great help from the POTN membership. If I had it to do over again I would not have gone for the "L" lenses. IMHO and exerience they do not offer that much of a gain in IQ for the large increase in cost. I have two "L" lenses and they are last in line in my usage. Look at all the lens reviews found on the Internet, search this forum and others and you will find many, many superior lenses that are non "L" and/or third party manufactored.

Another thing, I have a very, very supportive wife who understands my passion for photography and encourages my kit expansions (within reason) along with a great job and this has allowed me to build my gear up quickly

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2239036
You shouldn't be spending anywhere near £550 on a 17-40. Like I said I got mine for £430.

and with a £70 rebate as well... you can't go wrong

If you don't have a rebate booklet just apply for one

http://canonextrapromo​tion.onlinerebates.com​/faq.aspx

The cheapest place in the UK to buy this lens that I can find is priced at £527, £70 rebate comes to £457

Been offered this lens from someone on this forum for sale at £375, mmm

This is such a popular question (Perfect walk around lens) and think it opens up the option for Canon to produce an other lens

It also would be nice if this lens would be useable on both a crop and non crop camera ie 30D, 1D and 5D

This thread has me thinking again as I am concidering selling the 17-85 and buying the 24-105 (I already have the 10-22).

To me the 17-85 is the perfect range for a crop camera but the quality is not quite there.
The 17-40 is just not long enough
The 18-55 IS is also not quite long enough

What we need is a 17-70mm f/2.8 L IS I would recon the UK retail price would be around the 1K mark . I would even be happy with a 17-70 f/4 L IS and would recon that would cost about £600

Oh well, I hope Canon are watching

For the meantime I will probable still get the 24-105 as pared with the 10-22 they make a great everyday set

Dazecoop wrote in post #2239241
The cheapest place in the UK to buy this lens that I can find is priced at £527, £70 rebate comes to £457

Have a word with Kerso PM him though.