Printable View
Hi
Im on the look out for an alternative to my standard kit lens and was looking originally at the 17 40 L but then started looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS USM.
I was wondering what other peoples thoughts are on each lens. I would like to know which lens would produce the sharpest image for landscape photography.
What body are you using? If you are using a full frame body (such as the 5D or 1D series) then the 17-55mm will not be compatible.
I use the 17-40mm on a 5D Mark II and I find is acceptable for most landscape work, it's a little soft in the corners on full frame (as are nearly all ultrawide angle lenses).
If you're using a crop sensor body (7D, 50D, 60D etc) then I'd recommend the Canon 10-22mm for landscapes. I used to use it and I loved it.
Ben
I am using a canon 1100D at the moment but want to upgrade to a 7D next year. I would rather spend my money on lenses at the moment as I think most would agree this would be the best way to go. I do have a sigma 10-20 3.5 lens which i am getting good results with and also a canon 20-35 EF which I also like very much. I am indeed no expert but do want a lens that is a little more versatile. The 2.8 aperture is attractive and the slightly longer focal length of the 17-55 is also attractive. I would like to compare both lenses side by side to be honest to see any differences so i am thinking of hiring them from a local camera shop if they have them.
Hi, if you're considering either the 17-40/4 or the 17-55/2.8 as a replacement for the standard zoom, nearly all answers in this forum will point to the EF-S 17-55. It is better on almost every single point compared to the 17-40, the exceptions I can think of is weather sealing and FF-compatibility. If you for some reason would need either sealing or FF-compatibility in the future, I recommend you to re-consider then. For the moment I would definitely say you should go for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.
(Of course there are other lenses, but if you choose between those two the 17-55 is the best option.)
Good luck!
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??
Yup.I chose the 17-40 because of FF compatibility and weather sealing and a cheaper price than the 17 to 55.
Choosing the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the 17-40 f/4.0L was a no-brainer for me. In fact, I would have only considered the 17-40 if I shot with a FF body and needed it for a wide-angle zoom. On a crop sensor body, it is a comparatively poor standard zoom. The advantages of the EF-S include:
- The IS makes a big difference in delivering consistently sharp results from handheld shots at shutter speeds between 1/15-1/60 (sometimes even slower). This is especially handy if you are shooting with the camera held above your head or below eye level. I do both a lot to get unusual points of view at events such as dances at wedding receptions. This feature is undoubtedly what pushes the price of this lens over the 17-40, and it is worth every penny.
- The f/2.8 advantage over the f/4.0 gives you extra stop of light and helps with low-light focusing
- The f/2.8 opens up shallow DOF creative possibilities you can't get with the 'L'
- The extra length of 55mm vs. 40mm gives you a little more reach and allows for more flattering portrait shots.
- The 17-55mm is sharper edge-to-edge than the 17-40 at f/4.0
The only disadvantages are the lack of weather sealing / durability and the fact that the EF-S lens can't be used on a FF body. You've indicated that you shoot an 1100D and are thinking about upgrading to a 7D, so the latter should be of no particular concern for you. And the 17-55mm is hardly flimsy. I've even used it in some spritzing rains. I should think that unless you are a war correspondent on your way to Afghanistan, this isn't too much of a concern either.
My only regret with regard to the 17-55mm is that I waited so long to get it. I purchased it last October and it has hardly been off my primary body since.
+1 to btaylor regarding the 10-22mm if you want a wide-angle zoom for landscapes on a crop sensor body.
wat abt my query?? pls suggest.
DJ, I'd suggest either the Canon 17-55mm IS or Tamron 17-50mm. I just sold my 24-105mm. It's not fast enough or wide enough for my liking, so we were using a combination of the kit lens for wide, and either the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 for longer shots. If you do any video, you'll want to seriously consider the Canon despite the extra cost, just for the IS. If you need to shoot quietly, again, the Canon wins. If you don't need IS or quiet, the Tamron is supposed to be a good lens for a cheap price. It's on my list of lenses to consider purchasing. Some people think they can pair the 24-105mm with a 10-22mm, but that just seems like you'd be constantly wanting to swap lenses indoors, and really, really annoying.
Also, if you want to upgrade just for decent indoor shutter speed, rather than a thin DOF, maybe you don't need a lens at all, but a flash.
You are kind of hijacking someone else's thread. It may be better to start your own, and you would probably get more responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ 86
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
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.
Or snowy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Stephen
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.
actually my query was very much similar to this thread, so i preferred posting in this thread rather than creating similar new thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by conropl