Opinions/comments on 17-40L + 50mmf1.4 trade for 17-55

Hey guys. Just looking for feedback on something I have been thinking about but haven't done anything about yet. I think I will be sticking crop sensor for quite sometime as long as it is made available due to FF pricing. I am considering selling/trading my 17-40 and 50f1.4 to fund a 17-55 for the f2.8 and IS. Many of the shots I take are of the kids indoors and would prefer a zoom to prime for convienence. A few things concern me about the 17-55......namely dust collection and IS failure. Of course not all have these issues(and the dust is considered minor) but still.....concern me. Has anyone made this switch and regretted it or would do it again in a second? Any experiences you can share would be appreciated. Thanks.

The 1755IS is a superlative lens. Do whatever it takes to get it for your 1.6x.

I'd make that deal any day.

Very good deal IMO.

Dust doesn't affect the image if it's on the front element in most cases, so I'd not worry about that. I've heard of IS failure on the lens, but am not sure if it's a common thing though.

As for getting the lens, I think it's a better lens lens solution than getting the 17-40L and the 50.

Thanks for the replies. Looks like the majority like the 17-55 route, which is the way I am leaning. Anyone know if the IS failure in this lens is somewhat widespread or not more than any other IS lens? I had read a few threads about that on the 17-55.

I never felt the need for a 50mm prime when I was using the 17-55. It is an awesome lens, and when I bought it I didn't think I would ever go full frame. But after getting the 5D + 24-105 last week, I kinda wished i got the 17-40 instead......

I did what you're thinking of doing. I sold my 17-40L and 50 1.4 and bought myself the 17-55 IS. I love the lens. It's worth the money. I love primes and sometimes I wish I had the 50mm, but the 17-55 is a great performer.

The 17-55IS is the best lens in that range for the crop body, so go for it!

I own both the 17-40 and 17-55 and the 17-55 is a much more useful lens on an EF-S camera.

However, if you do much low light shooting the 50/1.4 will allow you to use a shutter speed that is 4 times as fast as the 17-55 (or 8 times as fast as the 17-40). If you need that very often I would try to finance trading the 17-40 on the 17-55 and keeping the 50/1.4.

Thanks for all the feedback! I am going to agree with the crowd. I am not unhappy with what I have, just think the 17-55 will work better for what I need. I think I will post them up for sale after I figure out how to do it.

I'm going to go against the majority and say keep your 17-40. I just got mine and it hasn't been taken off my camera yet. I used the 17-55 IS for a wedding not too long ago and I like my 17-40 alot more. Granted you COULD do the trade, sell the 17-55, then buy the 17-40 and the 50 1.4, and still have some cash left (not much). But you could always do that after you start missing your 17-40

I'm going against the crowd too, in low light the 50 will be much better then the zoom. I borrowed a friends 17-40 and that thing was soooo sharp I hated looking at a snap my husband took of me because it showed every wrinkle and spot on my face! If you need the reach on the zoom do what you want, but if I were you I'd figure out how to do it without selling the 50. You sometimes need a good fast prime.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #3689895
I'm going against the crowd too, in low light the 50 will be much better then the zoom. I borrowed a friends 17-40 and that thing was soooo sharp I hated looking at a snap my husband took of me because it showed every wrinkle and spot on my face! If you need the reach on the zoom do what you want, but if I were you I'd figure out how to do it without selling the 50. You sometimes need a good fast prime.

I agree completely about the 50. It's good to have at least one fast prime in your bag, and the 50 1.4 is pretty economical. It's probably worth the $$ you'd get out of it to keep it around, and just save up a bit more to make up the difference. The 17-55 is a very solid performer...AF is awesome imho, but sometimes you just need a larger aperture than f/2.8.

I had that lens - and for the short time I had it, I never had any dust issues. It was a great lens and you can use it in low light. Really depends on what you're doing. In fact, B&H told me to just try it in low light before investing in a faster lens. They were actually trying to talk me out of spending more money, so that has to tell you something. If I were you, I'd go for it. I have the 24-70L on my crop, but only because I do most of my shooting outdoors and didn't feel the need for the wide end at this point. Are your kids running around, or can you still do portrait stuff? My kids are not staying still at all anymore, so I returned my 50L 1.2 (which I felt was an AWESOME lens). Zooms are just more practical with kids IMHO. Good luck. I know, perhaps better than many, how tough this decision can be, lol.