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

[thekingb]

I have a 7d and love my 17-40 when I am outdoors in good light for (1) landscape shots and (2) close range people shots when I don't want to blur the background too much. BUT I am starting to feel limited by its range and max aperture. So I got to thinking....should I sell it and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?


The major advantages to the 17-40 seem to be build quality/weather sealing, EF mount and the letter "L."


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 also have the 50 f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS (by far my favorite of the bunch).


Thanks!

[StapledPhoto]

I haven't used either lens, but it sounds like a good plan to me.
Honestly I don't understand why Bryan says that he recommends the 17-40
to crop users in his review of the lens. Why would you take a lens that has been engineered specifically for ultra wide angle performance and crop it? The ISO charts show even the 17-85, with its much larger range and IS as performing only slightly worse, and the 17-55 does better at 2.8 sometimes and easily better at F4.


You are right about the build quality and weather sealing, but I'm not sure about holding resale value better. I hardly ever see 17-55s come up compared to the many 17-40s on my local CL and they never sell cheap. Unless you are in some very treacherous conditions why would build quality ever trump IQ? Don't fall into the trap of being more concerned with your photo gear than your photos


Sorry to rant on the 17-40 as a general purpose zoom on crop, but it's been bothering me lately Maybe just cause I'd rather see it on my 5D :P

[mikehillman89]

Do it!


As much as the 17-40 is an L with weather sealing and such, IMO the 17-55 is just as good optically and while I'm not encouraging you to stand outside with it during a storm, anything can take a few drops of rain [:P]. The 17-55 seems like it was the lens they forgot to add L to in the name, that's how great it is. I always liked the focal length of the kit lens from when i got my XSi and I've borrowed the 17-55 from my friend a few times and am hugely impressed by the quality of it.


Your other option would be to give me the 17-40mm and I'll sell it and get the 17-55mm! [A] Haha. Happy selling!


Mike

[Sheiky]

Tough choice if you ask me.


I had to choose between them as well a long time ago: thread


And I must say I was pretty pleased with buying the 17-55. The IS proved to be more of a benefit than I had imagined. However at that time I said I wasn't planning on going full frame, which happened about 2-3 months later [:P] and the weathersealing was not important to me, because my 50D had no use for it. So at that time I chose the 17-55, but my choice nowadays could be different.


Anyway..

The EF-S has potentially better IQ, is a full stop faster, and has IS

Slightly better IQ perhaps, but don't expect too much. The 17-40 has less vignetting by a whisper and the other factors are in favor(just yet) to the 17-55. It does have the f2.8 aperture and IS, which proved very welcome to me at that time. But at that time, I had no lens with IS.

But it's not as rugged, might not hold its value as well, is bigger and heavier, and costs $300 more.

It is...I lost about 200 Euro's (1/4th of new-price) in just 2-3 months. However I don't think the priced drop very hard from that point after. And no it doesn't have weathersealing, which I (now that I've seen the light) believe is an amazing feature.

BUT I am starting to feel limited by its range and max aperture

I'd doubt the 40-55 range would be that much of a change to trade your lens. Especially since you could use your 70-200 for a lot of things you'd mentioned like the portraits. Max aperture however is a thing where the 17-40 definitely has a disadvantage. The f2.8 of the 17-55 combined with the IS is very helpful in lower light situations and also in landscapes with sunsets etc.


Anyway my conclusion is that it remains a hard choice, since the 17-40 isn't such a bad lens. One question remains...do you really need the wider aperture zoom? Can't you use your 50mm for wider aperture shots?


The way I see it is that with the money you can save on selling the 17-40 and buying the 17-55 you could probably almost buy an 85mm 1.8 for instance...


But if the IS and f2.8 is worth the 300 dollars for you, I don't think you'd really regret it. However it's always a good idea to test the 17-55 in a local shop before selling your 17-40 []


Good luck,


Jan

[realityinabox]

I don't see why not. The 17-40 was made to be an ultra wide for full frame users. On a cropped body, it becomes more a general purpose lens, but lacking some of the benefits of the 17-55 ef-s (like IS and 2.8).


So if you don't plan to go full frame any time soon, and if you don't need the weather sealing, I'd say go for it.

[clemmb]

The EF-S has potentially better IQ,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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

[Tom Wertman]

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.

[thekingb]

I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider.

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?

[clemmb]

I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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

[Tom Wertman]

No dust issues here and I used it for weddings for about 2 years.