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

[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 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!

[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.