Should I sell my 17-40 f/4L for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS?

[2484Stryker]

I use them differently. I have the 7D, which the 17-55 is mounted on. I use it a lot, particularly for informal portraiture and people shots.

The 17-40 L is used primarily for landscapes with my FF camera. I rarely use it at f/4. I stop it down to f/8-f/11.

I would say that the EF-S lens gets more use.

Haha I see, so you rarely, if ever, use the 17-40 on your 7D then. Which lens would have your vote if you had to use the 7D exclusively? 17-55?

[shutterdown]

Haha I see, so you rarely, if ever, use the 17-40 on your 7D then. Which lens would have your vote if you had to use the 7D exclusively? 17-55?

Easy to vote on this choice: the 17-55.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the link. It looks like 17-55 is sharper at most apertures except at f/11, which is sharper for the 17-40 at the centre. I mostly shoot at f/8 though, and it looks like 17-55 has a very slight edge in this area...

No, the 17-55mm has a *big* edge. You're comparing the 17-55mm on a 50D (APS-C) with the 17-40mm on a 1DsIII (FF). The FF should be the clear winner (you can see the difference if you compare both bodies with the same lens, try the 200/2L or 200/2.8L). The fact that they're even close in the comparison tool means the 17-55mm is much better on APS-C.

[2484Stryker]

No, the 17-55mm has a *big* edge. You're comparing the 17-55mm on a 50D (APS-C) with the 17-40mm on a 1DsIII (FF). The FF should be the clear winner (you can see the difference if you compare both bodies with the same lens, try the 200/2L or 200/2.8L). The fact that they're even close in the comparison tool means the 17-55mm is much better on APS-C.

When I compared the two lenses, I changed both to 50D. Are you saying that the 17-40 was only tested on the FF and so even when I selected 50D it still showed me the same images from the FF?

[Black_Dog]

Thanks for the reply! I've heard that the 17-55 is also more prone to lens flare than the 17-40. Have you noticed this? (I'm assuming you've shot with the 17-55 before).

Thanks again!

I have never had a flare issue with my 17-55mm, but I always shoot with a lens hood.

[Black_Dog]

I've heard that it is prone to dust problems

The much talked about dust issue was 1) greatly overstated and 2) fully diagnosed and treated. 17-55 owners who began noticing dust were owners that did not use filters. Dust was getting into the body of the lens around the front element. Putting a filter on the lens completes the sealing and keeps the dust out. No one I know of who keeps a filter on this lens has ever reported a dust issue.

[Black_Dog]

The 17-40 was designed as a wide-angle zoom for film/ff bodies. That is what it is best at. The 17-55 is purpose built as a standard zoom for APS-C bodies. That is what it is best at. The 17-40 is competent as an APS-C standard zoom, but not the best. The 17-55 is better in that capacity. I would recommend to anyone buying a standard zoom lens for an APS-C body to get the 17-55 because it is the best lens for the job.

However, you already own the 17-40. Finding differences in real world IQ between the two might be a task in splitting some fine hairs, especially if you primarily shoot from tripod (thus eliminating the 17-55's IS advantage). For me the biggest issue with the 17-40 as a standard zoom is that 40mm is just too short on the long end for flattering portraiture. But you'll have to make that call based on how and what you shoot.

[neuroanatomist]

When I compared the two lenses, I changed both to 50D. Are you saying that the 17-40 was only tested on the FF and so even when I selected 50D it still showed me the same images from the FF?

Sorry, no. I didn't check to see that a 50D test was available - most EF lenses in the tool only have FF shots.

Still, I'd take the extra stop and IS. The 17-55mm is an excellent lens, IMO the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

[2484Stryker]

Thanks for all the replies! I have no doubt that if I was choosing between 17-40 and 17-55 for the first time that I'd go for the latter. However, given that I already have the 17-40 and that the 17-55 is an EF-S glass, I think I'll simply *suffer* the former and save up my money for the 5DIII.

Still getting the 70-200 L IS II though.

Thanks again!

[kirbyzhou]

Hello fellow photogs!

I need some advice. I currently shoot with the Canon 7D (1.6 crop) and have the following glass available:
1) 17-40 f/4L
2) 28-135 IS
3) 50 f/1.8 II

It's an acceptable collection to shoot everyday landscapes & some events photography that I do, but it's not very versatile and in a lot of cases I either don't have enough reach or my lenses aren't fast enough for low light. As such, I'm considering doing some lineup changes.

I will sell my 28-135 IS and purchase the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. This will give my more reach in low light conditions and I absolutely loved the 70-200 when I had a chance to shoot with it a while back. My biggest problem, however, is finding a general purpose glass for my 7D.

I want to sell my 17-40 f/4L and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. However, being an EF-S glass, it means that if I ever upgrade to FF (not entirely outside the realm of possibility, but quite remote though), I'd have to sell it and find yet another walkaround glass. My biggest concern, however, is getting over the reluctance of selling my L for a non-L glass...

I know the 17-55 produces excellent images that can match and sometime exceed my 17-40. But I've heard that it is prone to dust problems, and the build quality, while excellent for a non-L, is not up to par with 17-40. There's also some concern with the zooming that is not as silky smooth as my L. Then there's also the $1000 CAD price tag for a non-L glass.

What are your thoughts? Is selling 17-40 L to get the 17-55 IS a good idea?

Thanks in advance!!!

Just do it, 17-55 IS is the most valuable lens for Canon APS-C cameras.