Canon 17-40 f4L vs. 17-55 is usm

[Sheiky]

Alright I made up my mind! I finally bought the 17-55 2.8 after a lot...and then I mean A LOT of thinking :P


Again I will publish the pros and cons which I believe are truly important. Oh and...thank you all for your fantastic comments and help.


I will write everything that I change in BOLD, so super black ;) so you can spot the differences. Unfortunately I couldn't take my testpictures from the store, because I forgot to bring my own camera :( I sure tested both lenses and here are my findings:


Hello everybody.


About a week ago I decided to sell my tamron 17-50 2.8, because I was tired of it. I liked the imagequality but the longer I used it the more I hated the af performance, speed and accuracy, especially in low-light and or party-environment.


Now I got another dilemma. I can't decide between the canon 17-40L and the 17-55 is usm. I hope you can help me with my choice. I will use this lens as a standard walk-around lens on my 50D next to my 70-200 f4 and my 100mm 2.8 macro. I shoot a lot of outdoor sports and nature.


I will note the pros and cons of each lens and I need you to back it up or change them. I come from Europe, so my English might not be as good as you probably are used to. My apologies for that matter.


17-40 f4 L:


Pros:


-costs 130 euros less then the 17-55


-L build quality The build quality really is good, the lens really feels great in my hands. Looks and feels real strong, almost unbrakeable.


-Very nice color and contrast


-internal zoom


-EF so upgradable to FF, although I don't really plan this for near future


Cons:


-sharpness: I hear a lot of different opinions about this matter. Some say the 18-55 kitlens even outperforms the 17-40. That's hard to believe for an L lens. So I hope you can clear this for me. I really like detail and sharpness. I'm used to watching my photo's at 100%


My experience with sharpness was really good. I tested the lens and I thought it was as sharp as it could be at f4 with slight improvement stopping down. I watched my photo's on a 24" screen so I could see a little difference between both lenses, but the 17-40 sure was sharp enough!


-It's "only" f4. I don't really shoot a lot indoors, so I don't think it will be a major issue. For indoor use, this really is an issue.


-I thought of another con unfortunately. The background blur. At 40mm zoom, with a maximum aperture of f4 and a minimal distance of 0.5 meter, the DOF still is pretty big. I don't think you can make an object really explode out of the picture using the DOF.


-Anathor CON, the zoomring is really small! And it's just in front of the camera's body. So fast zooming in and out was kinda tricky for me. I'm used to the 70-200 and the tamrons 17-50 zoomrings and this is quite a difference let me tell you that. I'm not really small, 1.95m(6"6) so you can imagine my hands aren't the tiniest there are and the zoomring of the 17-40 really made me sad. I'm sure you can get used to it, but I don't think I will ever see it as a positive detail on this lens. If you count this detail to build quality, the build quality isn't as good as it looked before.


-No IS, I know I don't really need this feature, but for people making the same choice, this is really a thing not to forget. Especially when you shoot in automatic modes where shuttertimes aren't as controllable as in (semi)manualmodes.


17-55 2.8 IS USM


Pros:


-f2.8 so 1 full stop of light extra


-IS, although I don't really see the need for IS. I mainly shoot sports and don't need IS to do that.As I stated, for me it isn't such an issue because I mainly shoot sports, but when you shoot indoors, familymatters, architecture etc etc this is a really really nice feature. I managed to shoot sharp at 0,3 sec and that's just by testing it for like 10 minutes. Of course you don't want to shoot sports with that kind of shutterspeed :P


-Fast and accurate AF, due to 2.8 extra performance.


-15mm extra zoomlength. 40-55mm Not only that but also the 0,35m focus-distance helps a lot. The closeupperformance of this lens is a lot better then the 17-40's.


-Really sharp? This I can admit. Although the 17-40 is sharp as well, sharp enough for most of the pictures you will make with it, the 17-55s sharpness is really good. I watched my photo's 100 percent cropped and an 24" screen and I thought it was sharp enough to zoom in even more and still have a good image.


-Good colors and contrast





Cons:


-130 euro's more expensive I think it's worth it.


-not really flare resistant Can't say, but with the lenshood on I don't thnk this will be a major issue. Perhaps with landscapes with (in)direct sunlight. But for landscapes only I would choose the 17-40 anyways. And I'm sure that the 17-40 isn't 100% flare resistant as well.


-Dustproblems? I hear people complaining and people saying they used it for more then 2 years without any noticeable dust inside the lens. I think this dustproblem is just the fact that people who have the issue complain and people who don't have the issue (probably a vast majority) do not complain, so you end up hearing only the complains. It sounds to me that this " dustproblem" isn't really that bad for most of us.


-IS, since I don't see it as a necessary need.For a lot of people it is a nice feature so I will make it a pro.


-Indoor AF? Tamrons indoor low light AF performance was really bad haven't tried it out yet, but I'm sure this will happen with even the most expensive lenses around.


-Hunting for focus in bad lighting conditions. (Counts for the 17-40 as well, maybe even more)





This is what I can think of right now. If I decide to buy the 17-40 f4L I probably will buy a 50mm 1.4 prime later this year, since I save a few euros on this lens. I have had the 50mm 1.8 but I really don't want that one again. Horrible AF and it got stuck to my brand new 50D, so I could return it immidiately when I bought it. Don't want that drama again.


I hope you can help me out with this one. All thoughts are welcome. Thanks already and greetings from the Netherlands


Price 17-55 =769 Euros = 1143.81 US Dollars


Price 17-40 =629 Euros = 935.57 US Dollars

[ShutterbugJohan]

Welcome to the forum! I'd go with the 17-55 IS. Since you aren't planning on upgrading to FF soon, it will be perfect for your needs.

[cian3307]

I have the 17-40L and find it a superb lens. However, there are times when the IS would be useful....


It's going to be a matter of personal preference that decides it for you.

[cian3307]

I have the 17-40L and find it a superb lens. However, there are times when the IS would be useful....


It's going to be a matter of personal preference that decides it for you.

[Sean Setters]

Those of you who've read my posts know that I absoluetly love my 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's probably the best all-around general purpose lens with superb image quality (that is, on a 1.6x body). However, I'm unsure that the 17-55 will be a cure-all for Sheiky. The reason is simple--the 17-55, in my opinion, hunts for focus a little to often in low-light situations. I've run into this problem on several occasions where I simply couldn't obtain focus even though I thought there was enough ambient light to do so.


Therefore, in this situation, with the poster's specific needs in mind, I'd be inclined to suggest the two-lens setup. However, my best advice is to save up a little extra money and rent the 17-55 first. If it focuses well enough in low light situations for your needs, then buy it--it's a more useful lens than the 17-40. However, if you find that it doesn't focus well enough in low-light situations, thenrent the 50 f/1.4 and see if it will perform up to your standards under those same conditions. If so, then buy the 17-40 and 50mm combo.

[Daniel Browning]

I liked the imagequality but the longer I used it the more I hated the af performance, speed and accuracy, especially in low-light and or party-environment.


My experience is that the 17-55 is not going to do any better with autofocus. It will be quieter is all. I think upgrading from your 50D to the 7D would make more difference to autofocus.



I can't decide between the canon 17-40L and the 17-55 is usm


There's no contest. The 17-55 destroys the 17-40 in almost every category. The only superiority of the 17-40 is in the weather sealing, build quality, and full-frame compatibility.


If your whole reason for upgrading is autofocus, then the 17-40 would be a huge step backwards. It does not even activate the f/2.8 autofocus sensor in your camera, which is far more accurate than the f/5.6 sensors that the 17-40 uses.



-sharpness: I hear a lot of different opinions about this matter. Some say the 18-55 kitlens even outperforms the 17-40. That's hard to believe for an L lens. So I hope you can clear this for me. I really like detail and sharpness. I'm used to watching my photo's at 100%


It's true. The cheap, lowly 18-55 kit lens blows the 17-40 out of the water:


18mm at f/4.0 ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=1&Lens=455&Camer a=474&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp= 474)


24mm at f/4.0 ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API= 0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =2&APIComp=0)


28mm at f/4.5 ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API= 1&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp =3&APIComp=1)


35mm at f/5.6 ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=4& APIComp=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0 &FLI=3&API=2)


The other cheap lenses are even better. Your previous Tamron 17-50, or the Sigma 18-50, and of course the Canon 17-55 all do better than the kit lens, so they are in a different league than the 17-40.


It should not be surprising or hard to believe. The 17-40 is like a big commercial truck that can carry 30,000 pounds at 60 MPH. The 18-55 IS kit lens is like a small sedan. It can drive twice as fast as the truck (60 MPH), but it can't tow 30,000 pounds. It is much sharper than the 17-40, but it can't be used on full frame. The 17-55 f/2.8 USM and Tamron 17-50 are like sports cars. They drive even faster than the 18-55 kit lens, but they still can't be used on full frame.


If you want to see the 17-40 shine, you *have* to put it on full frame. Compare the 17-40 on full frame vs. the 10-22 on APS-C and you'll see what the 17-40 was designed to do.

[Chuck Lee]

About a week ago I decided to sell my tamron 17-50 2.8, because I was tired of it. I liked the imagequality but the longer I used it the more I hated the af performance, speed and accuracy, especially in low-light and or party-environment.


I hope "decided" doesn't meant you did. The 17-50 f2.8 is an great piece of glass.


Low light parties are sometimes too low light even for the best L glass with USM. I'm still confused as to why people always want to blame it on the lens. I get more hunting with my 70-200 f2.8L in a low light situation than I do with the Tamron 17-50.


Primes are great for low light. I love the EF 50 f/1.4 @ f/2.0 for low light indoors work. That however is on A FF 5D. Maybe someone knows of a high quality 30 or 35 1.4 that would fit the low light party need of a APS-C sensor.


Sheiky, I think you'll find when shooting in low light with low number apertures AF will always be hit and miss. The dof at f2.8 and below gets very narrow and just a little movement toward or away from the camera can cause an OOF result. IMHO, I would suggest if you buy something that you would put it in a head to head test with the Tamron before selling that lens off. You might be suprised at the test results. It could save you some considerable coin.


Otherwise, I vote for the 17-55 f2.8 IS.


The last consideration is to buy a 430 EX II andshoot bounce flash. The external will give you focus assist in low light and with flash you can shoot at higher apertures resulting in sharper more "in-focus" images. If you feel like flash is to intrusive, set the flash not to fire and just use the AF assist.


My thoughts, good luck.

[gunslinge]

This is bad, this summer I could not make the same choice, so I got the tamron 17-50 2.8, because of the cost and its 17mm was to be wider that the canon's 17mm, and have been very happy with it, except for some back-focusing at very close range. You seem very well informed about the choices, have you looked at the new EPS 15-85 ( I think that is the right model ), wider on both ends, IS, somewhere inbetween for cost, and a little slower F-stop wise?

[Sheiky]

Thank you! There are so many replies, I'll try to read and comment on all :D


cian3307 (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/cian3307/default.aspx]<span style="text-decoration: none;)<span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]replied on (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2430/18811.aspx#18811]<span style="text-decoration: none;)Tue, Oct 27 2009 5:46 PM



<div class="ForumPostTitle"]
<div class="ForumPostTitleInner"]
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>


I have the 17-40L and find it a superb lens. However, there are times when the IS would be useful....


It's going to be a matter of personal preference that decides it for you.



I don't doubt the quality of this lens, although I'm a bit afraid of it's sharpness. That's the only downside I can think of right now. As I mentioned, I mostly shoot sports and outdoors and IS is something I never used and I probably will never use. Unless it is IS panning mode, but both lenses lack that feature.



<div class="ForumPostTitle"]
<div class="ForumPostTitleInner"]replied on (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/Sean-Setters/default.aspx]Sean Setters<span class="ForumPostTitleDate)Tue, Oct 27 2009 6:19 PM
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>


Those of you who've read my posts know that I absoluetly love my 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's probably the best all-around general purpose lens with superb image quality (that is, on a 1.6x body). However, I'm unsure that the 17-55 will be a cure-all for Sheiky. The reason is simple--the 17-55, in my opinion, hunts for focus a little to often in low-light situations. I've run into this problem on several occasions where I simply couldn't obtain focus even though I thought there was enough ambient light to do so.


Therefore, in this situation, with the poster's specific needs in mind, I'd be inclined to suggest the two-lens setup. However, my best advice is to save up a little extra money and rent the 17-55 first. If it focuses well enough in low light situations for your needs, then buy it--it's a more useful lens than the 17-40. However, if you find that it doesn't focus well enough in low-light situations, thenrent the 50 f/1.4 and see if it will perform up to your standards under those same conditions. If so, then buy the 17-40 and 50mm combo.



Alright, that's a clear point. Unfortunately I can't rent the lens at my local store. I could take it out for testing outside with a salesman for max 30 minutes. That's the only choice I have. I will definitely do this with both lenses on D-day ;) I can try lowlight focussing indoors there to find it out myself. Thank you for pointing that out.



<div class="ForumPostTitle"]
<div class="ForumPostTitleInner"]replied on (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/Daniel-Browning/default.aspx]Daniel Browning<span class="ForumPostTitleDate)Tue, Oct 27 2009 7:16 PM
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>



<blockquote>
<div>http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gifSheiky:</div>
<div>I liked the imagequality but the longer I used it the more I hated the af performance, speed and accuracy, especially in low-light and or party-environment.</div>
</blockquote>





My experience is that the 17-55 is not going to do any better with autofocus. It will be quieter is all. I think upgrading from your 50D to the 7D would make more difference to autofocus.



<blockquote>
<div>http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gifSheiky:</div>
<div>I can't decide between the canon 17-40L and the 17-55 is usm</div>
</blockquote>





There's no contest. The 17-55 destroys the 17-40 in almost every category. The only superiority of the 17-40 is in the weather sealing, build quality, and full-frame compatibility.


If your whole reason for upgrading is autofocus, then the 17-40 would be a huge step backwards. It does not even activate the f/2.8 autofocus sensor in your camera, which is far more accurate than the f/5.6 sensors that the 17-40 uses.



<blockquote>
<div>http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gifSheiky:</div>
<div>-sharpness: I hear a lot of different opinions about this matter. Some say the 18-55 kitlens even outperforms the 17-40. That's hard to believe for an L lens. So I hope you can clear this for me. I really like detail and sharpness. I'm used to watching my photo's at 100%</div>
</blockquote>





It's true. The cheap, lowly 18-55 kit lens blows the 17-40 out of the water:



<div class="ForumPostTitleInner"]Chuck Lee (http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&amp;FLI=0&amp;API=1&amp;Lens=455&amp;Camer a=474&amp;FLIComp=0&amp;APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=100&amp;CameraComp= 474]18mm at f/4.0


24mm at f/4.0


28mm at f/4.5


35mm at f/5.6


The other cheap lenses are even better. Your previous Tamron 17-50, or the Sigma 18-50, and of course the Canon 17-55 all do better than the kit lens, so they are in a different league than the 17-40.


It should not be surprising or hard to believe. The 17-40 is like a big commercial truck that can carry 30,000 pounds at 60 MPH. The 18-55 IS kit lens is like a small sedan. It can drive twice as fast as the truck (60 MPH), but it can't tow 30,000 pounds. It is much sharper than the 17-40, but it can't be used on full frame. The 17-55 f/2.8 USM and Tamron 17-50 are like sports cars. They drive even faster than the 18-55 kit lens, but they still can't be used on full frame.


If you want to see the 17-40 shine, you *have* to put it on full frame. Compare the 17-40 on full frame vs. the 10-22 on APS-C and you'll see what the 17-40 was designed to do.


Alright this is a clear and helpfull comment. I checked out the isocharts or whatever they are called and I've seen the differences .... WOW! If every 17-40 is that "sharp" I'll definitely NOT buy this lens :P



The problem with autofocussing on the Tamron was that sometimes it's just to slow. Imagine an athlete running towards you or people on a trampoline. It just couldn't get the focus right 1 out of 2 times. Sports photography is a discipline I do most, so this is a major issue for me. My 70-200 never let me down on this one. And that lens is "just" f4. On the back of my camera most of those pictures looked fine, but when I watched them fullscreen I'm disappointed half of the time. That's why I wanted something faster. I'm convinced that the usm feature focusses a lot faster and more accurate.


Upgrading to a 7D is a future dream ;) I'm using my 50D for like half a year now and I'm really pleased. Especially compared to the 450D which I had before it.



<div class="ForumPostTitle)<span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]
<div class="ForumPostTitleInner"]gunslinge (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2430/18810.aspx#18810]replied onTue, Oct 27 2009 11:21 PM
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>



<blockquote>
<div>http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gifSheiky:</div>
<div>About a week ago I decided to sell my tamron 17-50 2.8, because I was tired of it. I liked the imagequality but the longer I used it the more I hated the af performance, speed and accuracy, especially in low-light and or party-environment.</div>
</blockquote>





I hope "decided" doesn't meant you did. The 17-50 f2.8 is an great piece of glass.


Low light parties are sometimes too low light even for the best L glass with USM. I'm still confused as to why people always want to blame it on the lens. I get more hunting with my 70-200 f2.8L in a low light situation than I do with the Tamron 17-50.


Primes are great for low light. I love the EF 50 f/1.4 @ f/2.0 for low light indoors work. That however is on A FF 5D. Maybe someone knows of a high quality 30 or 35 1.4 that would fit the low light party need of a APS-C sensor.


Sheiky, I think you'll find when shooting in low light with low number apertures AF will always be hit and miss. The dof at f2.8 and below gets very narrow and just a little movement toward or away from the camera can cause an OOF result. IMHO, I would suggest if you buy something that you would put it in a head to head test with the Tamron before selling that lens off. You might be suprised at the test results. It could save you some considerable coin.


Otherwise, I vote for the 17-55 f2.8 IS.


The last consideration is to buy a 430 EX II andshoot bounce flash. The external will give you focus assist in low light and with flash you can shoot at higher apertures resulting in sharper more "in-focus" images. If you feel like flash is to intrusive, set the flash not to fire and just use the AF assist.


My thoughts, good luck.


Thanks. I already have the 580EX II flash, but low light isn't really my problem. I know it's hard for every camera/lens to find a good focus. It's more the problem I stated a few lines earlier. The "slow" focussing is the problem for me.



<div class="ForumPostTitle)<span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]replied on ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/2430/18810.aspx#18810)Wed, Oct 28 2009 12:03 AM
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>


This is bad, this summer I could not make the same choice, so I got the tamron 17-50 2.8, because of the cost and its 17mm was to be wider that the canon's 17mm, and have been very happy with it, except for some back-focusing at very close range. You seem very well informed about the choices, have you looked at the new EPS 15-85 ( I think that is the right model ), wider on both ends, IS, somewhere inbetween for cost, and a little slower F-stop wise?


Hey man, well this isn't really bad is it?? I hope not :P The Tamron is a really good quality lens. It's just that I'm not pleased with the focussing during sportsphotography. I don't really experienced backfocussing at very close range. For portraits I use my 100mm lens as well for close-ups of other things.


I have noticed the new canon lenses, but I'm not really warming up for them. I just like the fixed aperture. I shoot a lot in the Manual modus so an aperture depending on the zoom could really screw things up for me.


I'd like to thank you all so far for your good and upbuilding comments. They really help. I'm still not really convinced but I'm leaning towards the 17-55 at the moment, because of sharpness issues with the 17-40. I think it's hard to believe that an L-lens gets beaten in image quality by a standard kit-lens. I was dreaming/hoping that someone with a 17-40 could post me some photo's proving that sharpness is not such a problem :P Thank you all so far. I will edit my startpost with the things you mentioned.

[cian3307]

I can't say I've ever noticed any lack of sharpness with my 17-40L. I also use a 300L f4 IS and a 100 f2.8 Macro, both noted for their sharpness and the 17-40L holds up well against them. It also on a par with my 50 f1.4 when its opened upwider than f2.2 (perhaps not a fair comparison, the 50 kicks ass closed down past f2.2) With full frame the corners can soften a little but I use 1.6 crop sensors so that not an issue unless you are planning to upgrade to FF. Maybe I've been lucky and got a particularly sharp one. I've only owned one17-40L so I can't compare with another. Perhaps I should test a 17-55 for comparison, I might be pleasantly surprized[:)]


Whichever you choose to buy, enjoy!

[Sheiky]

Thank you for this eyeopener. It still makes my decision a lot harder again :P I hoped that the 17-40 wasn't that sharp so I could finally rest my mind ang go for the 17-55, but your comment makes me doubt again. Later this week I will try both lenses at my local store and I was nearly there to buy a 17-55. You got a 100mm macro that I have as well so you know what I mean when I say sharp. Thus if you think the 17-40 is sharp as well, I really don't doubt it. Also no I'm not planning to buy a FF camera, I like the 1.6 crop. Man this is a hard decision :) Still not convinced..

[cian3307]

OK, maybe this will help: The 50D isn't fully weather sealed, so the sealing on the 17-40L isn't a decider. Unless you are pretty rough with your lenses, you won't need the rugged L build. With the 17-55 the extra 15mm reach at the long end and theextra stop(f2.8 v f4) will probably be very useful to you. If you're not planning a FF upgrade and you treat your lenses with care then its the 17-55.


Hmmmm.... the more I think about this, the more I'm considering trading in my 17-40L for a 17-55 [;)]

[Sheiky]

OK, maybe this will help: The 50D isn't fully weather sealed, so the sealing on the 17-40L isn't a decider. Unless you are pretty rough with your lenses, you won't need the rugged L build. With the 17-55 the extra 15mm reach at the long end and theextra stop(f2.8 v f4) will probably be very useful to you. If you're not planning a FF upgrade and you treat your lenses with care then its the 17-55.


Hmmmm.... the more I think about this, the more I'm considering trading in my 17-40L for a 17-55 /emoticons/emotion-5.gif









I don't know what you mean by rough :P I treat my lenses with absolute care, but as I stated, I like to take pictures at different sport events. Inclusive motocross etc... Take a look at my picture what shows about the roughest my lens had to face.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.48/2009_5F00_04_5F00_13_5F00_1502.jpg


This doesn't mean that it's always such a mess where I take pictures, but... it is possible :P


So far I'm really convinced by the 17-55's extra 15mm, 2.8 aperture and IS, for only a small amount more. I just want to see and test both lenses and I made an appointment at my local store for tomorrow so.... :D I'm going to see them both and hopefully I get the chance to test them both a little. I must say the 17-55 is still in favor, but I might change my mind tomorrow. I'll be back later ;)


I will definitely tell you all which lens I buy at the end of all this and why I bought it. Might be a fun thing for you as well :D (I think)


Until that time don't hesitate to comment on anything. Every tiny detail and idea I can use to make my decision.

[jimgarvie]

I've owned the 17-40 F4L and currently own the 17-55 F2.8IS. The IQ if the 17-40 is very nice -- very "L-like" with excellent contrast and color. It may not be as sharp ultimately as the 17-55 but that only matters if you're making huge prints. My standard product is an 8X10 print and both are more than sharp enough for that.





The 17-55 is a better lens for me for show formals and weddings. At F2.8, you get to use lower ISO. With IS, you get more sharp images in low light. Yes, it's sharper than the L but not by a lot. I've had no dust problems with mine and it's as well-constructed as the L. Both are excellent lenses. If you NEED the extra stop, then there's no question. The 17-55 is well worth the price. If you don't need it, then it's a matter of value and the 17-40 is an excellent value.





Jim

[Sheiky]

I made my decision :D I bought the 17-55 yesterday. You wanna know why? Just read my starterspost, I will edit it with all my new and old findings!

[Mikeh]

Chuck - I've had two copies of the 18-55 IS and the 17-40, and never has the 18-55 "blown the 17-40L away". In fact, the 17-40L beats it. You can see the pics for yourself:


http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/05/canon-17-40-versus-18-55-is-comaprison-revisted-post-canon-50d-af-micro-adjust/ ("http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/05/canon-17-40-versus-18-55-is-comaprison-revisted-post-canon-50d-af-micro-adjust/)





In fact, the 18-55 Is had a nasty purple cast and did not replicate the color accurately.

[Mikeh]

I should add that the 18-55 IS is a really nice lens for the money, but it does not "blow away" the L at all. The L has much nice IQ overall. The 18-55 IS is great for the money though, so you can't really knock it.

[Cris]

get the 24-70... i have one on my 50d and it is a stunning lens. you will be amazed...

[Sheiky]

Well it wasn't really an option for me to buy the 24-70. And to be honest, I would pick the 17-55 over the 24-70 on a crop body any given day. There is really nothing to say about the image quality the 17-55 produces, it's just great!


My friend bought the 24-70 on his 50D, but he suffered a lot more chromatic aberation than I had with my 17-55. Same shots!


And the IS makes a lot of photos very easy as well. As well does the weight by the way. The 24-70 is really a big fat boy [:P]


I believe the 24-70 is build for a full-frame camera and therefor it's noticeably better there than it is on a crop camera.


Unless you need the ruggedness I would advice the 17-55.

[Chuck Lee]

Chuck - I've had two copies of the 18-55 IS and the 17-40, and never has the 18-55 "blown the 17-40L away". In fact, the 17-40L beats it. You can see the pics for yourself:



For the record.... I think you mean "Daniel"


I've never owned or used the 18-55 kit lens.

[Daniel Browning]

[Daniel] - I've had two copies of the 18-55 IS and the 17-40, and never has the 18-55 "blown the 17-40L away". In fact, the 17-40L beats it. You can see the pics for yourself:





First, thank you for the correction -- you are right that the 18-55 IS doesn't really blow away the 17-40 -- it's only slightly better than the L. I should not have exaggerated.


Second, I was responding specifically to the OP's question about sharpness (i.e. contrast and resolution). I was not speaking about the overall performance of the lenses, such as color accuracy, flare, bokeh, transmissivity, etc.


Third, the test you linked to do not demonstrate superiority of the 17-40 in contrast or resolution. The 18-55 is sharper in the corners at all focal lengths, and in the center for most of the zoom range (18-28mm). The 17-40 is only sharper in the center at 35mm.


Fourth, your test photos are stopped down to f/6.3, almost two stops for the 18-55 at 18mm. The difference between the 17-40 and 18-55 are more striking when they are shot wide open. At f/6.3 they become more similar, which is why your pics show a smaller difference than other tests.


Fifth, the comparison you linked to is at hyperfocal distance, which makes it good for landscape photographers. However, my experience is that the strength of the 18-55 is in closer focus distances, such as for people and event photography. The contrast/resolution advantage of the 18-55 is clearer there.


Sixth, I agree that the 17-40 does not have the ugly color cast of the 18-55, but that is a separate issue from sharpness that the OP asked about. Furthermore, the color cast is easily corrected with white balance, or more optimally corrected with a color profile.


Finally, even if I was totally wrong and it is the 17-40, not 18-55, that has slightly higher resolution and contrast, then even then, such a difference is not a good reason to pay so much more for a lens. Maybe 20% more. Or even 50% more if you really need contrast. But not 440% more, which is what it takes to get the 17-40 over the 18-55. The advantages of the 17-40 are in other areas aside from contrast/resolution, such as build quality, focus, weather sealing, and much more. Those other reasons are what make it a good value.