17 - 40L f4 Vs. 17 -55 f 2.8

New to SLR's. Recently purchased a 40D with the 28 - 135 Kit lens. Then added the 100mm macro lens. Now I am looking to add a few more lenses. I am looking at purchasing the 70 - 200L f 2.8 and adding a wide angle lens. My question is what is the differences between the 17 -55 f2.8, and the 17 - 40L f4? I understand the extra light available with 17 - 55, but what are the benefits of 17 - 40L if any? Like I said I am new to SLR photography so all inputs are welcome. I am not sure besides the general landscape purposes what I would use the wide angle lens for so in most cases I guess my shots would be in good light. Looking for all inputs.

Thanks

Having only looked at these lenses on paper...

17-55mm is faster at f/2.8

17-55mm has IS

17-55 is longer

both some on the wide end.

both have USM

On paper, I would say it's a no brainer... maybe someone with experience will say differently though... I am guessing the build quality is much higher on the L...

I've had both. Add to the above post, 17-40 has better build. Both are very good. Get the 17-55 if money isn't a primary concern and IF, you don't plan on getting a FF or 1.3 crop anytime soon.

I sold my 17-40 for a 17-55 (all in a trade deal with other stuff) thinking I would stick with a 1.6 crop. Then, I got a 1Dmk2, so I traded the 17-55 for a 24-105. I might get another 17-40 now.

17-40 end doesnt move when zooming unlike the 17-55.

hood and case are included with 17-40. They arent with the 17-55.

17-55 can only go on 1.6x crop cameras.

17-55 has extra stop though.

What will you be using it for?

herbe_nelson wrote in post #5507255
17-40 end doesnt move when zooming unlike the 17-55.

hood and case are included with 17-40. They arent with the 17-55.

17-55 can only go on 1.6x crop cameras.

17-55 has extra stop though.

What will you be using it for?

Mainly architecture and scenic views. In most cases I am thinking well lit situations, except for night shooting which in that cans I would be using a tripod. Guess I am answering my own question here.

PS
This forum is awesome, lots of responses and no sarcasm for a new guy wanting to spend his money. Thanks.

....and one is an "L" and the other isn't...you should really rent them first and see which one you take a shine to.

jjackflash wrote in post #5507323
....and one is an "L" and the other isn't...you should really rent them first and see which one you take a shine to.

Unfortunately I am in the Air Force and stationed in Northern Japan and do not have that option.

I love my 17-40

Does your unit have a PAO? Mine has some canon gear, and that could be a way for you to check out at least one of the lenses you are interested in and see what you think.

Stocky wrote in post #5507421
Does your unit have a PAO? Mine has some canon gear, and that could be a way for you to check out at least one of the lenses you are interested in and see what you think.

What is a PAO?

Krank wrote in post #5507277
Mainly architecture and scenic views. In most cases I am thinking well lit situations, except for night shooting which in that cans I would be using a tripod. Guess I am answering my own question here.

PS
This forum is awesome, lots of responses and no sarcasm for a new guy wanting to spend his money. Thanks.

I have both, and I used them on the 40D.

I use the 17-55 for company events, coupled with my flash. The 2.8 makes things easier at low-light, and when some portraits are needed. Being said that, 17-40 is still sufficient for events with a flash. This is just personal preference.

But for landscape, I use the 17-40. I can't imagine removing the filter on 17-55, allowing chance for dust to be trapped in the lens, to use my GND filters. And I cannot imagine not bringing my GND filters for scenic shots.

Even though 17-55 has some barrel movement when zooming, it is still reasonably light and managable; maybe because I hold the 70-200 quite a lot but it never seems to be a problem. 17-40 is lighter though, and the build seems to be able to take more knocks than my 17-55.

I don't think you'll go wrong with any of them. But if u're going more on landscape / scenic, probably would advise you to take the 17-40. And if u are craving for a 5D or FF in future, 17-40 makes an ideal wide angle lens (only losing 1mm against 10-22).

Well, it's ur budget and you have to decide what you're going to use it for. But here's some sharing for you. Hope it helps.

i love my 17-40. walk around and landscape.

Krank wrote in post #5507430
What is a PAO?

Public Affairs Office/Officer

In these forums the 17-55 is considered the general use lens to get for a crop body, such as your 40D. Compared to the 17-40, the 17-55 gives you IS, a wider aperture, and a longer reach. The only reason I could see someone going with the 17-40 over the 17-55 is if they want to save some money and don’t think they will need/use the IS or f/2.8.

Some say get the 17-40 if you’re going for a full frame camera in the future. I wouldn’t worry about that since the 17-55 hold its value well and can be easily sold if you upgrade your body. Others say the 17-40 has better build quality. It might, but unless you’ll be hammering nails with your lens, the 17-55 will hold up just fine.

Both are great lenses. I don't think you could go wrong with either.

17-55 IS has many advantages over 17-40.
And these advantages will give you much edges.

It is 1 stop faster, 15mm longer and has Image Stabilizer.
Each one of those advantages alone is worth the consideration, but with 17-55 IS.. you get all three!

People keep talking about the build quality issue, but make no mistake, 17-55 IS is still very well built.

It is not "hammer a nail" build quality, but it is still very solid and durable quality.