Canon EOS 50D + 17-40 L = ?

Good thread with some good pointers, I too have been advised to get a 17-40 L lens for my 50D - I'm thinking to sell my Sigma 17-70 and purchase the 17-40 instead for the better image quality..

I agree with Smorter.... I don't see the fascination with the 17-40 on a crop, compared to what else is available out there. I would be swapping lenses every 5 minutes. Then again, I am not a 17-5n fan on a crop either.

The 17-40 is not very wide and it's too short on a crop, imo. Couldn't care less if it is an L.

Would still buy a UW like a 10-22 and would need a mid sized zoom like a 24-70. The 17-40 is a solution looking for a problem on a crop, imo.

On a FF, it's a totally different animal. Equivalent to the 10-22 on a crop.

The 17-40L comes alive on a 5D. However barrel distortion starts to clean up at aprox 30mm or so. You'll see some "fisheye" distortion photos that look great but when I see an album filled with that perspective it gets tiring IMO. I purchased the 17-40L specifically for group shot of cars for my car club for my 5D. My 17-40L is virtually brand new with almost no useage if you compare to the other lenses I have in my gear bag.

For indoors with a crop body its f/4 aperature is limiting and flash is almost necessary for bounce. More versatility can be had with a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50EX. For more beans if you want the best alternative for a crop you'd seriously look into the 17-55IS.

Since I am also not a fan of 17-xx zooms I'll use my 24-70L more than both of my short zooms.

I don't like it...

The 17-40L is a fine lens and is great for a full frame camera. However, I never liked it on a 1.6x crop camera because:

1. Although it is a neat wide angle lens on a full frame camera, it is really more of a mid-range zoom on a 1.6x camera.

2. As a mid-range zoom, f/4 is just not fast enough.

3. As a mid-range zoom the 40mm long side (64mm equivalent) is just not long enough.

I used the 17-40L combined with a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a 30D and a 40D and really missed the 40mm to 70mm gap.

I also felt that I needed a wide angle lens to back up the 17-40L on 1.6x format equipment.

My present combination is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as my mid-range zoom along with the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

The 17-55mm is a much better mid-range zoom because of the constant f/2.8 aperture, great IS and the 88mm equivalent long end.

I don't miss the 55mm to 70mm gap at all.

I will often carry a 12-24mm Tokina for really tight spots. However the 17-55mm + 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is plenty for most of my shooting.

bohdank wrote in post #7942643
I agree with Smorter.... I don't see the fascination with the 17-40 on a crop, compared to what else is available out there. I would be swapping lenses every 5 minutes.

The 17-40 is not very wide and it's too short on a crop, imo. Couldn't care less if it is an L.

Would still buy a UW like a 10-22 and would need a mid sized zoom like a 24-70. The 17-40 is a solution looking for a problem on a crop, imo.

Totally agree that 17-40 on a crop is either not wide enough or not long enough. This was my 2nd L lens and I constantly wished for more reach and on the wide side, 17mm * 1.6 is really not wide at all. As you see from my sig, I went with 10-20 and 24-105.

The only thing I don't agree is not caring for an L, which I do care a great deal (construction, consistancy and pride of ownership).

IMHO, a lens starting at 17mm on a crop is superior to one starting at 24mm or 28mm. I would actually prefer 15-40 than 17-50 though.

Many people have expressed that a 10-22 and 24-105 combo creates a "bad break point", requiring frequent changing of lenses, and have subsequently gone back to a 17-55, 17-40 or kit lens after that combo.

You would do less lens changing for example with a 10-22, 17-40 and 55-250 IS than you would a 10-22 and 24-105 IS for landscape phootgraphy. The overlap allows you to keep a lens on for longer periods.

I use 17-40L on my 40D as a primary walk around lens, and couldn't be happier. I had the 17-55 and sold for the 17-40L. The extra stop of light was nice, but the color, contrast, and build quality of the 17-40 blows the 17-55 out the water. IS is not a worthwhile feature in the 17-55 range if you ask me...

You can get the 17-40, 50 1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 for about the same price as the 17-55(new), and you'll have much better lens setup IMO.

the 17-40 is a great lens that i've enjoyed.

but after recently getting the Tokina 11-16, i have not used it much at all. i'm torn as to whether i should sell it or not, as it's a wonderful copy and sharp wide-open, not to mention the colours...

but back to the original point, 50D with 17-40L is a great set up. It's a bit short on the long end, but you could possibly make up for it by getting closer to the shot by foot

Mike55 wrote in post #7944399
IMHO, a lens starting at 17mm on a crop is superior to one starting at 24mm or 28mm. I would actually prefer 15-40 than 17-50 though.

Many people have expressed that a 10-22 and 24-105 combo creates a "bad break point", requiring frequent changing of lenses, and have subsequently gone back to a 17-55, 17-40 or kit lens after that combo.

You would do less lens changing for example with a 10-22, 17-40 and 55-250 IS than you would a 10-22 and 24-105 IS for landscape phootgraphy. The overlap allows you to keep a lens on for longer periods.

I do no lens swapping back and forth with my shorter lineup 10-22/28-75. They are different lenses used for very different things, for me. I tend to swap more with the 28-75/70-200 when I am out.

It really depends on the individual and what subject matter you mostly shoot. And that's really the point. What is right for me may not be right for you, and vice versa.

I have the 17-40 as my main walk-around lens on my crop body. It's a great lens, but I do agree with everyone saying that it is a little short on the long side. I carry a 50mm with me to get the extra reach when necessary.

I have the 17-40 and I absolutely love it! I used it on an XT and it was great and my 50D should arrive tomorrow! I'm gonna post some pics over at this thread.

Love my 17-40L! Its a bit short I agree but I'm not in professional use so I'm quite happy with the result it comes out .