WA problem

I know I'm tired of reading the which lens threads as much as the next person, but I'm not sure what to do. My husband said to buy a lens already and not worry about the price as much because money has been keeping me away from some lenses. I want something wider (my widest is 28) and can't decide between the 17-40 and the 17-55. I don't need the 2.8, but the IS sounds like a bonus (with my health I'm needing to sell my 200 prime and get the 70-200 f/4IS due to not being able to hold it as still as I would like) I have borrowed both lenses from friends, while the IS didn't seem to work as well as the 70-200's IS the longer end seemed nicer then the 40. But I tend to like longer rather than wider. I like the colors on the L better, I like the build much better (including the fact the lens doesn't extend when zooming.)

But for someone who really doesn't shoot all that much is it worth the money? Should I just get a cheaper prime like the 24 (which I had and stupidly sold) but I worry the 24 may not be wide enough. It worked for most of my use but a few times I wished I could go wider. I really wish they would make a 17 f/4 prime like the old FD one I had, that lens was great!

And please don't tell me to get a UWA, I'm not interested in going that wide right now.

Well, IS is less a factor with wide angle lenses than it is with longer lenses since the problem of camera shake's inherently less with shorter focal length lenses (the old 1/f.l/ rule of thumb). What else do you have? You mention a 28, and say you're going to replace the 200 with a 70-200 IS. Anything in the 50-70 mm range? Nifty? The 50 f/1.4? Do you shoot much in low light and without a tripod/monopod? if you do, you may want the 17-55 for the f/2.8 as much as for the IS. If you don't usually have to worry about light, (and that you're willing to go to an f/4 from an f/2.8 as a tele solution suggests you don't), you may be a candidate for the 17-40. You will have to decide whether the colors the 17-40 gives you are more important than the 17-55's seeming "nicer" at the long end.

90% of my shooting is outside in decent to great light. I do lots of birds (one reason I'm not wanting to spend TONS of money is I really want the 400 5.6) flowers stuff around the garden. I go to local mansions and photograph the grounds and hiking trails and gardens. I had the 50 but didn't like the MFD so I'm also thinking of saving (this will be years off after buying the other lenses) the 35L. With the crop camera I don't do a lot in the 50-70 range, it's either a bit wider or a bit longer, with my FD stuff I never used the 100 or the 135 this must be why I don't like the range now either.

I want a prime for inside stuff like the 35L, I don't think I'll need the 2.8 in a WA.

If you don't shoot that much and are concerned about price, what about the new 18-55 IS kit lens? It's gotten good reviews.

Otherwise, between the 17-40 and 17-55, if you're not gonna go full frame and you don't need the weather-sealing and build, then 17-55 all the way. I personally would go 17-40, no brainer, but that's because I do landscaping in what can be less-than-ideal conditions and I also own an EF mount film camera.

I have both the 17-40 f/4 L and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If you're going to stay with 1.6 crop, I'd go with the 17-55. The optical quality is great, the IS is still beneficial, and the build is pretty good (although not L quality).

I have the new 18-55 IS lens. It's very sharp, even wide open, and the IS really works. I was surprised at how well.

Price is good, too...

-js

OK I meant to say I don't shoot WIDE too much, I shoot longer every day. So yeah for us po' folk spending $860 on the 17-55IS seems unrealistic when it won't be my main lens. But I do want great IQ. The 24 prime I had (maybe it was a great copy) was very very sharp with great IQ. My husband said to stop worrying about the cost and get what I need so I don't need to upgrade, but I'd much rather put the extra money into the longer prime and the upgrade to the 70-200 zoom.

I'll look around about the IS kit lens. I thought it was $500 but I must have been thinking about the wrong lens. I didn't want to spend $500 on a kit when I could spend a little more on the 17-40.

Anyone have experience with the 20 prime? There isn't much about it on this site.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #4671936
I'll look around about the IS kit lens. I thought it was $500 but I must have been thinking about the wrong lens. I didn't want to spend $500 on a kit when I could spend a little more on the 17-40.

Nowhere near that. I paid $175 at Amazon.com. Money well spent!

-js

Do consider the weight of the lenses:
EF 17-40L 475g
EF-S 17-55IS 645g
EF-S 18-55IS 200g

The 17-55 may have the IS, and rightly so cos its 170g heavier than the 17-40L. My vote goes to the 17-40L for your needs.
And stretching the options, the 18-55IS looks inviting.
And Tokina has a 17mm/3.5 prime, not easy to find though.

Jon wrote in post #4666463
Well, IS is less a factor with wide angle lenses than it is with longer lenses since the problem of camera shake's inherently less with shorter focal length lenses (the old 1/f.l/ rule of thumb). What else do you have? .

I beg to differ...

Look at what the 17mm use of IS does here...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2595919&po​stcount=75

Now here is the 55mm use of IS...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2565908&po​stcount=62

BTW, for the OP's clarification (and for others who have not heard the news)

there is the old, often maligned 18-55 kit lens,
there is the newer, much praised 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, and now
there is the newest, good performing 18-55mm IS lens, too!