Sell EF 17-40 f/4 and get EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?

[Daniel Browning]

I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ,

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.

[clemmb]

I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ,

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

[Jordan]

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!

[thekingb]

I feel like such a nice FF-capable lens mounted on a 1.6x cropped body is a waste..

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!

[Mark Sanderson]

The EF-S holds it's value very well, in fact I sold mine about a month ago for more than I paid in 2008 []

[Daniel Browning]

should I sell it and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?

Yes. You'll love it!

What would you do?

If you don't need IS, I suggest the Tamron17-50 f/2.8, it's a lot cheaper but just as sharp. I still use mine regularly.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

[Sheiky]

If you don't need IS, I suggest the Tamron17-50 f/2.8, it's a lot cheaper but just as sharp. I still use mine regularly.

In this case he could even hold on to his 17-40 [:O]

[neuroanatomist]

The EF-S has potentially better IQ, is a full stop faster, and has IS. But it's not as rugged, might not hold its value as well, is bigger and heavier, and costs $300 more.


What would you do?

I'd get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a great lens.

[ElCid52]

I am still new to photographyand I do not own the 17-40 butI did just recently get the 17-55 f/2.8 and i love it. This is a great lens and I can say that it was worth every penny. My brother came into town for July 4th (he has a camera similar to mine) and even he was impressed by the difference this lens made. The only thing that I can say was difficult was the price. It is a lot of money for a non-L class lens. The lack of weather sealing isn't really a problem but the IS and the f/2.8 were really important to me so I made the leap. It is much bigger than I expected but a big lens doesn't really matter to me (I am 6 foot 8), especially if it gives me a better chance to get a good shot. Money is always a factor (especially if this is just a hobby like it is for me) but I would definitely recommend the 17-55 if you can afford it.





Best of luck,


Matt

[Dman624]

I have the 17-40 and I never want to get rid of it. I also have a 24-70 in my bag which I actually use mostly and there was a time I thought of getting rid of it, until I tossed on a ex430 II flash on top of my 40d, with my 24-70 and had to walk around myfianc&eacute;esbridal shower. It was sunny outside so I thought, I could get rid of a lot of weight by switching my 24-70 off, so I tossed on the 17-40 and shot all day long with it without a problem. I had some indoor shots that came out great, and the outside shots where the F4 area is at home, the shots came out great as well. I will keep this lens around, just switch out that stupid lens hood you get with the 17-40. I switched it a long time ago with the 17-55 2.8 lens hood and it works out perfect.