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

[Sheiky]

Thank you for this eyeopener. It still makes my decision a lot harder again :P I hoped that the 17-40 wasn't that sharp so I could finally rest my mind ang go for the 17-55, but your comment makes me doubt again. Later this week I will try both lenses at my local store and I was nearly there to buy a 17-55. You got a 100mm macro that I have as well so you know what I mean when I say sharp. Thus if you think the 17-40 is sharp as well, I really don't doubt it. Also no I'm not planning to buy a FF camera, I like the 1.6 crop. Man this is a hard decision Still not convinced..

[cian3307]

OK, maybe this will help: The 50D isn't fully weather sealed, so the sealing on the 17-40L isn't a decider. Unless you are pretty rough with your lenses, you won't need the rugged L build. With the 17-55 the extra 15mm reach at the long end and theextra stop(f2.8 v f4) will probably be very useful to you. If you're not planning a FF upgrade and you treat your lenses with care then its the 17-55.


Hmmmm.... the more I think about this, the more I'm considering trading in my 17-40L for a 17-55 []

[Sheiky]

OK, maybe this will help: The 50D isn't fully weather sealed, so the sealing on the 17-40L isn't a decider. Unless you are pretty rough with your lenses, you won't need the rugged L build. With the 17-55 the extra 15mm reach at the long end and theextra stop(f2.8 v f4) will probably be very useful to you. If you're not planning a FF upgrade and you treat your lenses with care then its the 17-55.


Hmmmm.... the more I think about this, the more I'm considering trading in my 17-40L for a 17-55 [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

I don't know what you mean by rough :P I treat my lenses with absolute care, but as I stated, I like to take pictures at different sport events. Inclusive motocross etc... Take a look at my picture what shows about the roughest my lens had to face.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.48/2009_5F00_04_5F00_13_5F00_1502.jpg[/img]


This doesn't mean that it's always such a mess where I take pictures, but... it is possible :P


So far I'm really convinced by the 17-55's extra 15mm, 2.8 aperture and IS, for only a small amount more. I just want to see and test both lenses and I made an appointment at my local store for tomorrow so.... I'm going to see them both and hopefully I get the chance to test them both a little. I must say the 17-55 is still in favor, but I might change my mind tomorrow. I'll be back later


I will definitely tell you all which lens I buy at the end of all this and why I bought it. Might be a fun thing for you as well (I think)


Until that time don't hesitate to comment on anything. Every tiny detail and idea I can use to make my decision.

[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!

[Mikeh]

Chuck - I've had two copies of the 18-55 IS and the 17-40, and never has the 18-55 "blown the 17-40L away". In fact, the 17-40L beats it. You can see the pics for yourself:


http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/05/canon-17-40-versus-18-55-is-comaprison-revisted-post-canon-50d-af-micro-adjust/





In fact, the 18-55 Is had a nasty purple cast and did not replicate the color accurately.

[Mikeh]

I should add that the 18-55 IS is a really nice lens for the money, but it does not "blow away" the L at all. The L has much nice IQ overall. The 18-55 IS is great for the money though, so you can't really knock it.

[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.

[Chuck Lee]

Chuck - I've had two copies of the 18-55 IS and the 17-40, and never has the 18-55 "blown the 17-40L away". In fact, the 17-40L beats it. You can see the pics for yourself:

For the record.... I think you mean "Daniel"


I've never owned or used the 18-55 kit lens.