|POLL: "17-40 4L + 50 1.4 or 17-55 2.8 IS"|
|Keep 17-40 4L and 50 1.4|
|Trade them for a 17-55 2.8 IS|
Joined Mar 2008
Post edited over 1 year ago by hqbach.
Joined Jan 2007
I wouldn't.....the two lenses you have are wonderful lenses, even for a crop body.
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Montpellier, France
No way man!
I think it will be a wash. F2.8 is often too slow indoors without a flash, and so is f4. No gain.
Joined Feb 2008
If you do mainly landscape on tripod, then you don't need IS, so why get rid of the 17-40? If you need a walk-around lens, then the IS will help. 50/1.4 should be better for portraits than the 55/2.8 of the 17-55. Do you use the 50 a lot?
6D: 50, 85, 28-75, 70-210USM, 430EXii.
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
Dec 07, 2009 11:37 as a reply to @ WT21's post |
hqbach wrote in post #9151135
Well, I do have an 580EX II
By that logic, f4 is plenty fast already, right? That was my point. I have a longer f2.8 zoom, and I used to own a wider f2.8 prime and zoom, and I still was always using flash unless there was good sunlight peeking in the windows.
Gallery: 147 photos
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Brit living in Germany
Dec 07, 2009 12:31 as a reply to @ tkbslc's post |
Martin.D wrote in post #9151334
This thread will be interesting..
I'm wanting to go Full frame next year (March / April) and want to replace my 17-55 but dont know if a 24-70 will be enough or 17-40 / 50mm 1.4...
If you are going full frame, 17-40 is an ultrawide since you lose the 1.6x factor. If you want what you had with your 17-55, you'll want something starting in the 24-28mm range. THe 17-55 is about 28-90mm in FF terms.
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Adelaide, Australia
I am actually selling my 17-40 and 85 1.8 for 17-55 IS at the moment. I found that the 17-40 a fantastic lens for outside, but not such a good performer in the portraits and the 85 was just too long for me.
Canon 50D + 17-55 2.8 + 50mm 1.8 + ex430
Joined Nov 2005
Dec 08, 2009 00:11 as a reply to @ crosseyed's post |
I did that trade, 17-55 is much more convenient when shooting indoors, people or event. However, I kind of miss the color/contrast from 17-40, the colors from 17-55 (while sharper) just looks different and I prefer the image from 17-40L.
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
i'd trade 17-40 but not 50mm 1.4.
"If you don't walk today, you have to run tomorrow."
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Seoul, Korea
Trade them for the 17-55mm. Then get the canon 28 f/1.8 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 later.
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
i voted for the 17-55 because the 17-55 is a very sharp lens, is f2.8 and has IS. i used to have this lens until i sold it. if i didnt upgrade to FF, then this would never leave my hands even if it did suck dust like a vac.