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

[DJ 86]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[FastGass]

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.

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.