17-40L or 17-55IS Which one has better IQ?

sunnybeach wrote in post #5599035
Basically, for the things I plan on shooting, 2.8 really is a must. As much as I would like the 16-35, I'm not ready to spend that much.

By keeping the 17-55, it will pretty much stay on one body, while the 70-200 & 85 1.8 (or another), will occupy the otherbody. As I plan on selling my 24-105 soon, the 17-55 will be a nice walk around lens as well.

Thanks, Kath

Sounds like you've made up your mind against the 17-40.

I think I have. I know that I WANT the 17-40. But in all reality, for what I shoot, I NEED the 17-55.

Oh well, if I win the lottery, I will have BOTH.

Thanks again guys for your help, Kath

sunnybeach wrote in post #5599224
I think I have. I know that I WANT the 17-40. But in all reality, for what I shoot, I NEED the 17-55.

Oh well, if I win the lottery, I will have BOTH.

Thanks again guys for your help, Kath

Wanna trade.

HaHa.....needs always come before wants

Have you decided what you will do as well then?

sunnybeach wrote in post #5599307
HaHa.....needs always come before wants

Have you decided what you will do as well then?

I'm pretty sure I'll be switching from the 24-70 back to the 17-55.

Contrast and colours are only a couple of clicks away. An extra stop, depth of field, sharpness and IS on the other hand...

What it comes down to is how much do you need/want those things.

I'm in exactley the same position !!

I love my 24-105L but need a wider angle on my 30D.

I would need to sell my 17-85mm to fund a 17-55IS, but am somewhat worried by the dust and IS failure posts. On the other hand I am not sure if the 17-40L has a long enough reach.

I have already photographed a couple of weddings ans maybe the 2.8 swings it. But then again the colours/contrast of the L ........

The decisions

bacchanal wrote in post #5599065
...
Here is a comparison of the 17-55 and 35L (both shots on the 30D). Of course it isn't quite fair, since the 35L is stopped down 2 stops, not to mention it's a prime vs. a zoom, but it is pretty hard to tell at this size. Any guesses as to which is which?

1/200 f/2.8 ISO100 - (full size - http://photos.fahrenhe​it128.com/img/v0/p1442​64674.jpg)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

1/200 f/2.8 ISO100 - (full size - http://photos.fahrenhe​it128.com/img/v0/p1225​58803.jpg)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I found this thread, while searching for 35L vs. 17-55/2.8 IS discussions...
Regarding these two images, my guess is that first one is prime and second is zoom.

jylitalo wrote in post #5883861
I found this thread, while searching for 35L vs. 17-55/2.8 IS discussions...
Regarding these two images, my guess is that first one is prime and second is zoom.

I agree. Of course, the EXIF data gives it away. The first shot is at 35mm (35L); the second shot is at 33mm (17-55).

-Mike

jylitalo wrote in post #5883861
I found this thread, while searching for 35L vs. 17-55/2.8 IS discussions...
Regarding these two images, my guess is that first one is prime and second is zoom.

Easy to tell. The zoom has a tinted cast, the prime does not and has better tonal separation. I have found this applies to all zoom versus prime comparisons in the Canon lineup.