Originally Posted by thekingb
I do not totally agree with this statement. I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ, IMO, for what that is worth. I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider. For shooting portraits with good background blur, you have two other lenses to get that. I would stick with the 17-40. Either way you go is good, they are both excellent lenses.
Mark
Mark
I have had both and recently sold both. Not because I didn't like either one, as they are both very fine lenses. The 17-55 was great on my 40D for indoor work. The 17-40 was great on my 5D for outdoor work. However because I also own the 24-105 4L IS I was using that lens on the 5D more and more because of it's versatility, range, and IS. My 40D has become my second camera used for indoor and outdoor sporting events with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. Using the 5D more and more as a walk around lens I thought I actually had more lenses than I really needed. Both the 17-40 and 17-55 held resale value very well especially since Canon's price increase several moths ago. I sold them for darn near what I paid for them new 3-4 years ago. I think you need to decide what you shoot the most and let that determine what lens you need. At this point if I had to pick one it would be the 17-55 but only because I have the 40D and reserving the 5D for lenses designed for FF bodies. As a side note I found the color of the 17-40 a bit contrasty for my liking.
Do you have IS on the lens? Maybe I have jittery hands, as I can't reliably shoot indoors with the 17-40. Although maybe now that I have a 7d, which has far better high ISO performance, I will have better results. I should give that a try.
Thanks for all the feedback. I am still thinking this through.
Anyone experience the so-called vacuum cleaner dust issue on the 17-55?
Do you have IS on the lens?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Yes I do. 24-105 I do not feel it helps much till I get 70mm or above. I shoot up to ISO 1250.
Mark
Mark
No dust issues here and I used it for weddings for about 2 years.
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.
I respectfully disagree.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
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
Mark
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!
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!
I can't speak for Jordan or you, of course, but for me personally, it is money and sharpness that is wasted.
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>
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote