Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 14 Jan 2009 (Wednesday) 15:35
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "17-40L or 17-55is for 40D ?"
17-40L
37
29.4%
17-55IS
86
68.3%
other
3
2.4%

126 voters, 126 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Poll : 17-40L vs 17-55IS on 40D

 
cherrymoon
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 14, 2009 15:35 |  #1

Please help me !

For months and months, i'm looking a wide angle lens. I've sold my 10-22mm because it was too wide. 17mm like seems to be the good ones for me. I'm hesitating between 17-40L and 17-55is.

Regarding my gear (24-105L, 70-200 f4L, 50 f1,4 and 85 f1,8 ), which one would you choose for a 40D ?

In a near future (depending on the choice, maybe in 2 or 3 years), i would like to go FF. And in a nearer future, i would probably upgrade my 70-200 f4L for it's f2,8 brother.


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bob-e
Senior Member
Avatar
572 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Lebanon, Tennessee
     
Jan 14, 2009 15:45 |  #2

sell the 24-105 and buy the 17-55 or trade if you can.


Fitty Dee, 30D, 17-55 2.8 IS, Σ 10mm 2.8 FE, Σ 30mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, 70-200 F4L, 430EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cherrymoon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 14, 2009 15:54 |  #3

I'm unable to sell or trade my 24-105L ! And it will be really useful when i switch to FF.


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weezerfan84
Senior Member
Avatar
903 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Fort Smith, AR
     
Jan 14, 2009 15:58 |  #4

Here is a very easy suggestion. These threads are coming up all the time. If you honestly plan on going FF in the future why even suggest an EF-S lens. That just means it's keeping you on a cropped body that much longer. Every lens I buy I look at it as an asset I won't be able to liquidate. That is why all my lenses are EF lenses, because they work cropped body or FF. If you're suggesting going FF then just get the 17-40L. On your crop you would be better off with the two L lenses I have. I have my indoor low light lens and my halfway decent low light lens. I also have a external flash so I never worry, unless I want more bokeh. Have my crappy prime for that. Not trying to be a dick, but these threads pop up once a day and every one states that the person wants to go FF in the future. I see if you're looking to go FF; why even waste your time on EF-S lenses.


Canon 5D classic/Canon 85 1.8/17-40L/Siggy 50 f/1.4 ex/430ex speedlite/and some books

My slowly improving flickr (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=735845

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Jan 14, 2009 15:58 |  #5

Kinda of a silly poll if you ask me.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cherrymoon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:09 |  #6

@weezerfan84 :
I know that 17-40L vs 17-55 threads are poping up so often but i'm really lost.

A few time ago, i would never bought an EF-S lens but so much people say 17-55 is a killer lens. Maybe i could keep 40d+17-55 as a second kit or to offer to my daughter ? It might be easier to sell a lens+body combo more than a body alone ?

So much people are talking of 17-55 that i'm a bit afraid of buying a 17-40L. I'm afraid of "flat" images with it. No real bokeh, no real sharpness, just a better range (than 24-105) for my crop ?

Already, here is 50/50...


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Microcosm
Senior Member
Avatar
291 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: NJ
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:15 |  #7

I own the 17-40 and the 24-105. I love the 24-105 as an all around lens. It's so versatile, with enough reach while still being wide enough to cover what I want. I say keep that.

I love the 17-40 too, but the f/2.8 and IS of the 17-55 would be really, really nice.
If I could pay the difference, I'd sell the 17-40 and buy the 17-55 while keeping the rest of my kit the same. It's a no brainer, I say 17-55.

If you're really going full frame soon, then 17-40.. but how soon? No sense in waiting around a year or two to use something to its full potential. And like you said, someone else might be wanting your old camera or it could be a useful back up.

It's up to you and your financial situation. How much gear do you see yourself purchasing in the future? Where do you see yourself upgrading to?


All Gear| Canon 50D | Canon Rebel XTi | EF 17-40mm f/4 L | EF 24-105mm f/4 L | EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS | EF 50mm f/1.8 | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 | 580EX II
Nikon EM | 50f/1.8 | 100 f/2.8 | Speedlight SB-E
MyFlickr (external link)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weezerfan84
Senior Member
Avatar
903 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Fort Smith, AR
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:17 |  #8

Are you going to be using the 17-55 as a walkaround or a landscape. I use my 17-40 strictly for landscape and a few indoor (flash) shots, and I have my 24-70L for low light situations. I've never used it, but if you're talking about FF, why even consider EF-S. The Canon 5D is selling for a good used price which would still make my 24-70 wider on FF then my 17-40 on cropped body. That is why I'm saying there's better ways to spending your money than getting the 17-55. It just depends on how you're going to be using your lens the most. The extra stop is nice, but the IS I've heard is finicky and really isn't even needed on a lens with such a short focal length. I don't have IS on my 24-70 and I do just fine. Just bump the ISO up and get some noise reduction. I'm no good photographer, obviously by my flicker, but I know what gear I would use the most.


Canon 5D classic/Canon 85 1.8/17-40L/Siggy 50 f/1.4 ex/430ex speedlite/and some books

My slowly improving flickr (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=735845

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weezerfan84
Senior Member
Avatar
903 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Fort Smith, AR
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:20 |  #9

You also may run the risk of losing value on the EF-S lens, but the L lens will hold its value quite strong. That's why I own 2.


Canon 5D classic/Canon 85 1.8/17-40L/Siggy 50 f/1.4 ex/430ex speedlite/and some books

My slowly improving flickr (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=735845

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,833 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:20 |  #10

For a crop body I'd go with the 17-55 IS, no question. Between that and a 70-200, not really sure you'll find much use for the 24-105. If your plans for a FF camera are outside of 6 months, I wouldn't worry about holding on to lenses specifically for that transition. You can always pick up another one when the time comes.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cherrymoon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:36 |  #11

The results are saying what i don't want to see : 65% for 17-55is...

17-xx would be my walkaround lens.

24-105 range seems to be a problem for me : not so wide, not so long. I believe 17-40L + 50mm + 70-200 would be a good solution on crop. The 24-105 will be kept for FF and in case i just can take one only lens for travelling.

Money is not a problem. Since 1€=1£, here in europe, it's an absolut bargain to buy in UK (600£ for a 17-55 and 478£ for a 17-40L) . My local store is solding a 17-55 for 1099€... At this price, there would be no choice...!

I'm used to L lenses and the fact that 17-55 is not build like this is quite annoying.

I think i'll finaly get a 17-40 and upgrade sooner my sooooo beloved 70-200 f4 to f2,8 !


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,905 posts
Likes: 165
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:40 |  #12

cherrymoon wrote in post #7077304 (external link)
The results are saying what i don't want to see : 65% for 17-55is...

17-xx would be my walkaround lens.

24-105 range seems to be a problem for me : not so wide, not so long. I believe 17-40L + 50mm + 70-200 would be a good solution on crop. The 24-105 will be kept for FF and in case i just can take one only lens for travelling.

Money is not a problem. Since 1€=1£, here in europe, it's an absolut bargain to buy in UK (600£ for a 17-55 and 478£ for a 17-40L) . My local store is solding a 17-55 for 1099€... At this price, there would be no choice...!

I'm used to L lenses and the fact that 17-55 is not build like this is quite annoying.

I think i'll finaly get a 17-40 and upgrade sooner my sooooo beloved 70-200 f4 to f2,8 !

This is what I was going to suggest :D.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cherrymoon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:44 |  #13

The hardest thing i'll have to do : leave my 70-200 f4

My copy is so sharp, i'm a bit afraid to find a not so sharp f2,8 (IS or not) copy !

wimg wrote in post #7077330 (external link)
This is what I was going to suggest :D.

Kind regards, Wim


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,905 posts
Likes: 165
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:47 |  #14

cherrymoon wrote in post #7077351 (external link)
The hardest thing i'll have to do : leave my 70-200 f4

My copy is so sharp, i'm a bit afraid to find a not so sharp f2,8 (IS or not) copy !

Well, keep it at least until after you have been able to compare the two. You can still decide to keep either one or even both. These lenses have different uses, after all.

Kind regards, Wim


EOS R & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & 3 zooms, OM-D E-M1 Mk II & Pen-F with 10 primes, 6 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weezerfan84
Senior Member
Avatar
903 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Fort Smith, AR
     
Jan 14, 2009 16:51 |  #15

I don't know if you can really walk-around with the 17-40. I hear the extra 15 mm reach before crop factor makes up big. I could never imagine my 17-40 as a sole walk-around, unless I was doing sole landscape. My heavy brick is my walk-around. You're in a situation where the 24-105 would shine on a FF, but lacks on the wide angle on a cropped body. To be honest I would just go FF and work more with your 24-105. I don't think you would be really satisfied with the 17-40 as a walk-around on a cropped body, but it would be UWA on a FF. I want to say the 24-105 on FF would give you more of what you want, but you would obviously lose a lot of zoom. There's no one lens that incorporates everything as well as the 17-55, but it is the dreaded EF-S mount, so it'll have to be sold when going FF.


Canon 5D classic/Canon 85 1.8/17-40L/Siggy 50 f/1.4 ex/430ex speedlite/and some books

My slowly improving flickr (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=735845

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,600 views & 0 likes for this thread
Poll : 17-40L vs 17-55IS on 40D
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Big Bill T
812 guests, 211 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.