Canon EF 17-40 F4 L compared to Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens

I have the T3i and the 17-55 2.8, it takes a special circumstance for me to take it off and put anything else on. I use it for the vids, stills, landscapes, etc. I went through the 15-85 upgrade (want it? it is for sale) and found that pretty much anytime indoors it was too slow - if I am going to be outside and can only take one, it MIGHT remember to take the 15-85. I also have the 70-200 II, and have a small bag that I take that fits it, the 585 and a couple gadgets, straps a mono/tripod to the bottom and this covers just about any day trip I might take.

24 is not nearly wide enough for a crop body and if you think about it the 15-85 covers the same effective range on a crop body vs. full frame as the 24-105. The 17-40 stops short in both reach and speed. You will quickly forget the few extra dollars spent, unless you don't spend them and can't get the shot cause you have a slower, shorter lens... Then by gosh you will remember the decision and most likely apply say or think something not best expressed out loud. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ 86

even i had same question in my mind.
as a replacement for kit lens, if i am using 17-40F4($885) or 24-105F4($1000) which is a better choice?
i think many will suggest for 17-40 for its 17mm wide end. but then i can also consider tamron 17-50 non VC which is quiet cheaper at F2.8 and also delivers sharp images.
what opinion do you guys have??

---

I just doubled checked the ISO charts and at f4 the image quality on the 17-55 is simply better than 17-40 on the 50d. I would think of it more of the Full Frame guys are "stuck" w/ the 17-40 and the crop body folks have the image quality/speed advantage......

Exactly. What can one point to that is more appealing in the 17-40 vs the 17-55 2.8?
-You are not trying to "go full-frame", so the EF-S mount is not an issue.
-The aperature is smaller.
-The zoom length is shorter.
-The IQ is poorer.

Other than weather sealing, I can't think of anything, and frankly when it is raining I photograph indoor things.

It seems one would have to be one heck of an outdoor-oriented photographer (living in one heck of a rainy place) to value weatherproofing over all the other factors above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Stephen

Exactly. What can one point to that is more appealing in the 17-40 vs the 17-55 2.8?
-You are not trying to "go full-frame", so the EF-S mount is not an issue.
-The aperature is smaller.
-The zoom length is shorter.
-The IQ is poorer.

Other than weather sealing, I can't think of anything, and frankly when it is raining I photograph indoor things.

It seems one would have to be one heck of an outdoor-oriented photographer (living in one heck of a rainy place) to value weatherproofing over all the other factors above.

---

Or snowy.

cls stated the same thing a while back and you have summed it up well... it is about weather sealing, and that only maters when you upgrade to the 7D which has better weather sealing in the body to allow you to take advantage of the weather sealing in the lens.

FF seems to be out of the plans - so that doesn't matter.

The 17-40mm is actually softer than the much lemented "Kit lens", and then you read the reviews on "How much better it is" than the kit lens.:eek:

Here is the link to the resolution crops http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0.

I wish Bryan would also shoot the 24-105mm on the 50D to see how it compares to the kit lens or 17-55mm f/2.8.

John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conropl

You are kind of hijacking someone else's thread. It may be better to start your own, and you would probably get more responses.

---

actually my query was very much similar to this thread, so i preferred posting in this thread rather than creating similar new thread.