Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
Yes. You'll love it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
If you don't need IS, I suggest the Tamron17-50 f/2.8, it's a lot cheaper but just as sharp. I still use mine regularly.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Quote:
Originally Posted by clemmb
I respectfully disagree. The 17-55 has better contrast, resolution, vignetting, and more:
17-40 @ 17mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 17mm f/4
17-40 @ 28mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 28mm f/4
17-40 @ 35mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 35mm f/4
Even the lowly 18-55 kit lens is sharper than the 17-40 at some focal lengths/f-numbers:
17-40 @ 35mm f/4.5 vs 18-55 f/3.5-f/5.6 at 35mm f/4.5
It isn't really all that surprising considering that the 17-40 was really made for full frame and shines best when stopped down to f/11 or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
In this case he could even hold on to his 17-40 [:O]
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
I'd get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a great lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I checked these before I made my statement. Of course, dummy me forgot to compare apples to apples. I had the 17-40 on a FF.
I stand corrected.
Mark
I am still new to photographyand I do not own the 17-40 butI did just recently get the 17-55 f/2.8 and i love it. This is a great lens and I can say that it was worth every penny. My brother came into town for July 4th (he has a camera similar to mine) and even he was impressed by the difference this lens made. The only thing that I can say was difficult was the price. It is a lot of money for a non-L class lens. The lack of weather sealing isn't really a problem but the IS and the f/2.8 were really important to me so I made the leap. It is much bigger than I expected but a big lens doesn't really matter to me (I am 6 foot 8), especially if it gives me a better chance to get a good shot. Money is always a factor (especially if this is just a hobby like it is for me) but I would definitely recommend the 17-55 if you can afford it.
Best of luck,
Matt
I have the 17-40 and I never want to get rid of it. I also have a 24-70 in my bag which I actually use mostly and there was a time I thought of getting rid of it, until I tossed on a ex430 II flash on top of my 40d, with my 24-70 and had to walk around myfiancéesbridal shower. It was sunny outside so I thought, I could get rid of a lot of weight by switching my 24-70 off, so I tossed on the 17-40 and shot all day long with it without a problem. I had some indoor shots that came out great, and the outside shots where the F4 area is at home, the shots came out great as well. I will keep this lens around, just switch out that stupid lens hood you get with the 17-40. I switched it a long time ago with the 17-55 2.8 lens hood and it works out perfect.
SIMPLE:
The 17-40 f/4 L is a nice lens but made for FF users. If your'e going to put it on a cropped body (and sure you won't be going FF any time soon) then I think it's silly to have it on there. Sell it and get either the 17-55 IS (I have one and it's WICKED sharp!) or the 17-50 that Daniel suggested.
I feel like such a nice FF-capable lens mounted on a 1.6x cropped body is a waste.. there are better lenses out there for that. Now 17mm on a FF body, that's a different story!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
I don't understand why it's a "waste." What is wasted? Certainly not center sharpness, as nice L glass on an APS-C body takes advantage of a great lens' center sharpness and can all but eliminate corner softness and vignetting issues. Why is that a bad thing? For that matter,I use the 70-200 f/4 IS (L glass made for a full frame) on my 7d as often as possible, and the results are often stunning -- certainly not a waste.
Is it money that's wasted? Not in this case. The 17-40L is $300 less than the 17-55.
Wasted focal length? Not in this case. I agree that it's hard to get really wide on an APS-C body, and that 17mm on a FF body is amazing, but the 17-40 and the 17-55 are identical on the wide end.
To me, the relevant question when deciding on a lens of similar focal lengths is this: which lens provides the best combination of IQ, build quality and resale value for the cost? EF vs. EF-S is essentially irrelevant, except that EF-S lens sometimes lag in resale value.
I just don't follow the logic....
BTW, I've decided to stick it out with the 17-40 for now, mostly due to cost considerations, and also because I can eek out higher shutter speeds in low light due to my new(ish) 7d's high ISO performance. Thanks to everyone for their input!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
I can't speak for Jordan or you, of course, but for me personally, it is money and sharpness that is wasted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
What you are saying is the same thing that 99% of photographers believe, and it is repeated by many magazines, web sites, forums, and probably even books on photography. So by taking that position you definitely have a lot of good company.
However, it is completely wrong.
And it's especially untrue in the case of the 17-40. Even the $100 kit lens is sharper. This urban legend persists because of two common flaws in the method used to compare different format sizes: using different iris diameters and different magnifications. These factors must be equalized between sensor sizes to provide any sort of useful comparison baseline, and when that is done, it becomes clear that larger sensors are sharper (usually by even more than you would expect based on the lens price differential).
<div></div>