17-40mm is a right decision?

I just bought an XSi that came with kit lens last month. I take over 280 shots and because it's a kit lens the picture quality is so so as for me. Also I cant stand with it when im zoom in and out the zoom thingie go out and in also it make sound when it AF that annoying me. Right now my budget are $660, I had my eye on the 17-40mm L which is only $610 at Amazon. Is it a right decision for me to get 17-40mm because I want an L lense that have very good Optic with USM, a lense that take sharp picture which is better then kits lens a lense that walk around lense and because I had an Crop Factor camera it will be "moderate" wide zoom lense. So what do you guy think? What should I buy?

It depends on your shooting style...

IMO, the 17-40L is a very nice lens and it is great on a full frame camera as a wide angle lens. However on a 1.6x camera it is more of a mid-range zoom than a wide angle lens and it is lacking in this category.

It is not really long enough (64mm equivalent) to be a go-to zoom. A 50mm or 55mm (80mm or 88mm equivalent) long end is IMO much better for my general shooting and can work decently for head and shoulders portraits.

The f/4 maximum aperture is just too darn slow for my go-to medium-range zoom without IS assistance. An f/2.8 aperture is much more versatile.

I would select either the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron (less expensive than the 17-40L) or the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Canon (more expensive than the 17-40L) instead of the 17-40L.

I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a 30D and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a 40D. When I combined my 17-40L with the 70-200mm; I really missed the gap between 40mm and 70mm. I don't miss the 55-70mm gap anywhere nearly as much.

That said; there are a group of excellent photographers who post on this forum who really love the 17-40L. That is why the title of this post is "It depends on your shooting style..."

agreed with the above poster.
A lot of people love the 17-40 but more love the 17-55 2.8 on crop bodies.
the 17-55 2.8 (canon) can be picked up for 750 used easy in the used forum.
read reviews on that lens. it is supposed to be amazing!

Their are a few different lens that will serve your needs as pointed out in the above posts.

If you do decide on the 17-40L, this is the set up I use and find the combo very rewarding, I have a 450D. My needs may be different to yours as I travel on a Harley and very limited to what I can take with luggage. The camera fits into a Pelican water tight case for protection but still small enough not to take too much space.

I have never found myself wanting more or less lens other than a 70-200.

I have supplied you with some shots of my camera in it's case which I took with a Canon PowerShot S2 IS. The next two shots were taken with the 17-40.

Hope this helps with your decision.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

It may not be as good on a crop as on a FF, but regardless it's still pretty. 17mm is still kinda wide, and that's the focal length I find myself at most with this lens. It may not be a walk around but that's ok by me, I don't mind changing lenses. I think photographers have gotten to used to zooms, and we expect the world in one lens. Aint so. Sometimes you gotta have different tools to get the job done.

Unless you have to have the USM focusing, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 are probably better suited for your purposes. The 17-40 has a small zoom range and one-stop slower aperture. It can be soft at f/4, but is usually nice and sharp by f/5.6.

It is good on a 1.6 and good on a FF, but the FL range is just weird on a 1.3...

Oh, but I would go 17-50 2.8 anyday on a 1.6

The need for USM automatically excludes the Tamrons. I share the feeling - I won't buy a lens without full time manual, which means USM is a must. Ideally, if you're gonna stick with a crop, get the 17-55 2.8 IS, but if for whatever reason you can't, the 17-40L is a great choice. It's the only zoom lens that hasn't been culled from my bag, and for good reason.

I've had my 17-40 for a few weeks now and so far, I enjoy it a lot. I leave it on my Rebel mostly and run the 70-200 on the MkII.

-Mark.

The 17-40L is a very nice lens and a good useful range on a crop body. However, as other people have stated, it is slow. I would highly suggest springing an extra couple hundred dollars for the Canon 17-55. It is more versatile and going for $850 new right now.

unixsac wrote in post #7013734
I just bought an XSi that came with kit lens last month. I take over 280 shots and because it's a kit lens the picture quality is so so as for me. Also I cant stand with it when im zoom in and out the zoom thingie go out and in also it make sound when it AF that annoying me. Right now my budget are $660, I had my eye on the 17-40mm L which is only $610 at Amazon. Is it a right decision for me to get 17-40mm because I want an L lense that have very good Optic with USM, a lense that take sharp picture which is better then kits lens a lense that walk around lense and because I had an Crop Factor camera it will be "moderate" wide zoom lense. So what do you guy think? What should I buy?

You`ll get better results with Tamron 17-50 on crop body, and for much less money. I tried 2 copies of 17-40, Tamron bit them by far in any way.