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

I agree with the last posts on the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS efs, I have one and would not change it for any of the WA lenses mentioned, I also have a 16-35 2.8 and it llives in a drawer now. The 17-55 is the one on the camera. I used it on my 20D, and now on my 40D. The 70-200 L series lenses are great tele lenses, if they are long enough for your needs. My hiking package is the 17-55 and the 100-400L IS. I llike bird and animal pictures. I am considering adding the 70-200 f4 L IS to my package for times I can predict closer in shots, with a more compact lens.

I have both. 17 - 40 quintessential landscape lens. Slow & will get you into trouble shooting low light & indoors. The 17 -55 = versatility, a go anywhere lens with IS and 2.8 Optically great -but not built as well & some have had IS/build problems (not me)

Cheers

damian

highway0691 wrote in post #5507885
I have both. 17 - 40 quintessential landscape lens. Slow & will get you into trouble shooting low light & indoors. The 17 -55 = versatility, a go anywhere lens with IS and 2.8 Optically great -but not built as well & some have had IS/build problems (not me)

Cheers

damian

Just to be clear, you mean on a full frame camera, right? The crop body equivalent being the 10-22.

Having had both on the Canon APS-C format no question the 17-55 IS is the better lens. Longer and faster with IS, in the hands of a capable user the EFS just has more to offer. Unless FF 35mm is in your near future or money is an issue I see no reason to pay for FF lens that isn't being used FF.

Also remember to factor in the cost of the hood for the EFS as it's not included in the price. But the 17-55 lives on my 40D. Prior to that it was always a back and forth between the 17-40L and 24-70L.

MrChad wrote in post #5508152
Also remember to factor in the cost of the hood for the EFS as it's not included in the price. But the 17-55 lives on my 40D. Prior to that it was always a back and forth between the 17-40L and 24-70L.

$15 knock off hood will be suffice.

The 17-55 makes a great landscape lens due to the IS - very helpful if you don't always have a tripod with you. Its an extremely versatile lens. Its only optical drawback is that it is more prone to flare when shooting landscapes.

17mm, 2 stop ND grad, hand-held...

For outdoor use, 17-40mm f/4 L... Love mine...

I owned both before, both are amazing lens. 17-55/2.8 sharp really sharp, althoguh the 2 lens I owned, the 17-40's colours had more pop to it, but there's the counter argument that this can be fixed in PP. I persoanlly like the build of the 17-40 better, but both are great choices

as other's mentioned 2.8 + IS is a dream, would have been nice for my 24-70/2.8 to have is but without the weight =)

Raymond

I've been through a slew of wide angle/stand zooms, 17-55 F/2.8 IS, 18-55 kit lens, Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, and the 17-40 has stayed with me through them all. I have to admit it's not the most versatile, it's not the fastest, but it has the best IQ to my eyes, perhaps I just have a very good copy.

I hated my 17-40L

This focal range, while pretty darn nice on a full frame camera as a really wide angle lens isn't really enough to be used as my go-to mid-range zoom lens on a 1.6x camera and the 17mm doesn't qualify it as a really wide lens for that format.

I was always banging against the long end of the 17-40mm zoom trying to squeeze an extra millimeter or two out of it. Obviously squeezing didn't work - as it remained at an equivalent 64mm which is (again IMO) a pretty limp long end for a go-to medium range zoom lens.

The f/4 aperture is also too slow for me to use as a go-to mid-range zoom. An f/4 aperture without IS severely limits the versatility of the lens.

I love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. The extra 15mm (equates to an extra 24mm equivalent - 88mm total equivalency) makes this lens a far more viable glass for my way of shooting.

I can work around the 15mm gap between my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. In fact, this combination has become my favorite duo (on two bodies) for general shooting or travel photography. When I teamed up the 17-40mm f/4L with the 70-200mm f/4L - I really missed the 30mm (equivalent of 64mm to 112mm) gap between these two lenses. I do a lot of shooting between 64mm and 88mm which is the equivalent focal range between the 40mm and the 55mm long sides of these two lenses.

I haven't even mentioned the great IS in the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. The f/2.8 aperture and the IS capability allow me to shoot subjects for which I would have needed a tripod or monopod with the 17-40mm f/4L lens.

I do not shoot professionally anymore and I never expect to switch to a full-frame system. I do shoot with two or three 1.6x bodies and usually have the 17-55mm on one and the 70-200mm on the other. They make a great pair.

Oh yes, did I mention that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens produces fantastic IQ?

I have worked with both but own the 17-40. If your using a crop body get the 17-55 no question. You get IS and f2.8. It is a great lens. They just do not make anything like it for us Full Frame guys(5D, 1Ds bodies).
The 17-40 has been out for a long time and is a great lens.
The 17-55 is a newer lens, EF-S for crop bodies and has the newest technology

Thanks for all the input just ordered my 17 -55 and 70 -200L 2.8. Can't wait to get it.

Krank wrote in post #5546785
Thanks for all the input just ordered my 17 -55 and 70 -200L 2.8. Can't wait to get it.

Congrats to getting those great lens! And also to your miserable pocket after spending so much at one shot!