anyone had a 17-40 and 17-55

I bought a 17-40 ef as I thought my next camera would be full frame.

Canon then released the 7D which I have decided will be my next camera upgrade from a 40D. As a result of this I am looking at replacing my 17-40 for a 17-55. I love the 17-40 but I hanker after the 2.8, is and the slightly longer reach would be a bonus. Has anyone had these lenses and is there much difference in quality?

The downsides are it costs more and does not have the weatherproofing unless there is anything I have missed.

Thanks

I have recently replaced my 17-55 with a 17-40, after my 17-55 went in for servicing for the sixth time. I was sick to death with dealing with it - broken IS more than once, AF failure more than once, zoom creep (that manifested after one servicing and not fixed until a couple later) and constant dust-issues (until I got a UV filter). Now there's grittiness to the manual focus.

It's at Canon, and I'm pondering whether to pay for the repair (leaning towards yes, but only because it's considerably a less useable lens without AF).

In the meantime, I've purchased a 17-40L. It's pretty nice, definitely a VAST improvement in build and handling.

That said, the 17-55 has better sharpness, but worse contrast and flare control. Colour is possibly a tad worse, but not a deal breaker. What the 17-55 really shines in though, is the constant f/2.8 (and sharp wide open), IS, and a more useful range. It is magnitudes more versatile.

That said, you can see why I both love and hate this lens.

I was in the reverse situation. HAd a 17-55, wanted a 5DmkII, but knew I'd have to give up EF-S lenses (also have the 60mm macro - superb). That and cost. With the announcement of a 7D, it was perfect. I could keep my lenses, and I can get all the benefits of the new camera - I think it's going to be a milestone camera for Canon. Ironically, my main EF-S lens broke after I got it. :/

That's just typical thanks for your advise

My only gripe about the 17-55 is the dust issue. Even with the UV filter put on, I still got a speck of dust in mines. It doesn't affect the picture quality at all but it bugs me that I have dust inside my $1000 lens. Other than that, I love the 17-55 IS.

I've since sold the lens for the 5D2 w/ 24-105. I can say this though, the 17-55 is sharper wide open than the more expensive 24-105L lens.

Oh, focussing should be better and a brighter viewfinder with a 17-55 on your 7D

Sadly I am still at the piggy bank/what can I sell stage with the 7D Hopefully in the New Year

s2kennyc wrote in post #8861340
My only gripe about the 17-55 is the dust issue. Even with the UV filter put on, I still got a speck of dust in mines. It doesn't affect the picture quality at all but it bugs me that I have dust inside my $1000 lens. Other than that, I love the 17-55 IS.

I've since sold the lens for the 5D2 w/ 24-105. I can say this though, the 17-55 is sharper wide open than the more expensive 24-105L lens.

The lack of weather sealing does cause me some concern especially at that price

Even with that said, I still think the 17-55 2.8 IS is the best walk around lens for a crop sensor camera. It should perform very well on a 7D.

You ought to consider the Tamron 17-50mm VC. It'll save you some bank, and it's every bit as sharp as the 17-55 and sharper than the 17-40.

I have both lenses. I have had my 17-55MM f/2.8 Ef-S IS for over three years and it has performed flawlessly. No dust and no IS issues. It generally lives on my 30D. I have taken 1000s of photos at numerous weddings without a hitch. IMHO it is the best and most versatile lens Canon makes for the crop camera. If I had to sell my entire kit...it would be the last to go.

I got my 17-40MM f/4 EF L shortly after I bought my 5D as I wanted a UWA for the full frame. In that role it excels.

One caution if you are considering the 7D. The 17-40MM will be a daylight or bright light lens only...the 17-55MM's f/2.8 plus IS is hard to beat in low light conditions.

As for IQ...the 17-55MM has "L" quality IQ, color, and contrast.

s2kennyc wrote in post #8861340
My only gripe about the 17-55 is the dust issue. Even with the UV filter put on, I still got a speck of dust in mines. It doesn't affect the picture quality at all but it bugs me that I have dust inside my $1000 lens. Other than that, I love the 17-55 IS.

I've since sold the lens for the 5D2 w/ 24-105. I can say this though, the 17-55 is sharper wide open than the more expensive 24-105L lens.

This could be me saying this.

Thanks again for everyone's input, has anyone else had experience of the Tamron 17-55?

Canon 17-40mm f/4L vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The Tamron is noticably sharper in pretty much every configuration. Even the Tamron at 2.8 is sharper than the 17-40 at 4.

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Again, the Tamron is noticeably sharper, especially wide open at 2.8.

I haven't personally used it, but I've seen enough sample reviews and talked to a couple photographer friends firsthand that have said really nice things about it. I'm going to be buying the VC model myself next month when it hits stores. The fact that it's half the price of the Canon equivalent (the 17-55 IS) is just icing on the cake.

I've had my 17-55 for several years now. It's seen a lot of use in a wide range of environments. It's been used for more than 10,000 studio shots alone. I almost never turn off the IS (I can't remember the last time I did) and the lens is still going strong. Maybe I got lucky but I've had no reall issues with the lens.

It does have a good bit of dust inside but picture quality is great.

The 17-40 does have the feel of a better build and I do like that the 17-40 does not extend. I've never missed anything else about the 17-40 though.

Fangs
That is ver interesting. Like you say it beats the 17-40 in every configuration. compared to the canon 17-55 it beats it at 17mm but I would say the canon marginally beats it at the long end.

Do you know how much the VC model is going to go for ?? Like you say the price does make it very attractive