Torn between two lovers

Hi all!
I just cannot decide for the life of me. I have read the new lens purchase info but still can't decide. Damn it took me a week to choose which rug to buy for my living room(thats how undecided I am).
17-55 2.8 IS or 17-40 f4L for my 20D.
So here I am asking your experiences and advice with these 2 choices. I don't really shoot that much low light stuff and most of my work is custom motorcycle features and walk around people shots at bike shows.Could also be doing a little portrait shooting soon.
The good reports on the 17-55 have made me undecided.
Regards,
Tony.

If you are planning to go FF I suggest go for the 17-40L. And the 17-40 is for me way better because of the build quality and the glass is an L.

Cheers

well if you can afford the 17~55mm why not then, it's got more range, f/2.8 and IS... What's to lose unless you're going FF soon.

I had to make the same choice.I went for the 17-55 is in the end and i have not been disapointed.The IS and the f2.8 are invaluable a times especially for indoor shooting.

Out of those two, the 17-55 gets my vote. The 2.8 and IS make it worth it. If you plan to do portraits, you're going to want something longer than 40 IMHO. You may eventually want to invest in a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 for that purpose. Good luck. I know how much these decisions can suck.

I'd choose (well did choose after selling the 17-40) 17-55.....The f4 is nice, but you can't shoot at 2.8, also the IS gives you amazing handholdability, walking around at bike shows I'm guessing your handholding

17-55 gets my vote as well not that I have ever used the 17-40 but ive compared it to the 16-35 and it was definatly a better image. Just a shame about the build quality of the 17-55.

The 17-55 has got good enough resale that you can afford to buy now and sell later IF you go full frame

But the Red ring is oh-so sexy. Crowds part, female gets light-headed, ambient light suddenly matches your desired exposure, Nikonians cowered in fear and Bin Laden himself comes out of hiding.

delhi wrote in post #4058680
But the Red ring is oh-so sexy. Crowds part, female gets light-headed, ambient light suddenly matches your desired exposure, Nikonians cowered in fear and Bin Laden himself comes out of hiding.

Not this female. God knows I've been to "L" and back, lol.

I'd rather have the extra stop, IS, and longer reach. The best tool for the job isn't always an L.

crn3371 wrote in post #4058765
I'd rather have the extra stop, IS, and longer reach. The best tool for the job isn't always an L.

A compelling argument indeed!

jj_photography wrote in post #4058044
And the 17-40 is for me way better because of the build quality and the glass is an L.

L's aren't the only lenses with L-like optics. If anything in this situation, the L-build quality is the outstanding trait of the candidates.

For a crop, I'd go 17-55. Concerning 17-40 and 17-55.. I've been there, done that. For me, I just found the 17-55 to be much more versatile. The only reason I never sold the 17-40 is because I still like this lens and it'll act as a nice UWA when I decide to go FF more permanently.

I'll chip in with the same conclusion as most have. I sold my 17-40 to get the 17-55 for the 2.8 and IS. I haven't been disappointed so far. It is much more versatile and is sharper. Both are great lenses but the 17-55 has more of what I wanted in a lens.

Don't feel bad. I don't like to make snap decisions either and usually end up overanalyzing. Good luck with your decision!

Thanks for all your help everyone.It seems like an overwhelming win for the 17-55.
I was leaning a little that way but the red ring just kept me at bay.
The decision has been made much much easier now.
Once again thanks,and good one Mum2J & M, very funny comment LOL. (to L and back)