Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

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

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8

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

    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!!!

  2. #2
    Senior Member FastGass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beautiful Ferndale Washington.
    Posts
    154
    The 17-40mm L is actually softer than the 18-55mm on a 1.6 body, it's a L for a FF ultra-wide not a general purpose lens on a 1.6 crop body. The 17-55mm will be a significant upgrade in IQ and features. Best lens there is for 1.6 bodies.

    The 70-200mm is a HUGE upgrade from your 28-135mm, you will be very happy you did.

    John.
    Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8
    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!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,168
    Got one, and don't notice so much flare. Also have the 70-200 II - it is great.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8
    Choice is so hard...

    I like the build quality of 17-40, and especially its weather sealing (I live in Vancouver, so it rains quite a lot, plus I sometimes travel to Taiwan, which is quite humid). Don't have a problem with its IQ (though that may change once I get the 70-200). On the other hand, it's not like I shoot outdoors in the rain a lot, and I'm sure people in Taiwan also use non-L glass, too, and have no problems with hit.

    What attracts me with the EF-S 17-55 is its low light performance & alleged IQ performance on a cropped body.

    *Pulling my hair out*

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Terra Firma
    Posts
    158
    I own both the 17-40 L and the 17-55 2.8. The 17-55 is as close to an L lens as you will get. It is essentially L quality.

    And, don't forget, it has IS, too.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8
    Thanks for the reply. Do you find that you use the 17-55 predominantly over the 17-40?

  8. #8
    Senior Member FastGass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beautiful Ferndale Washington.
    Posts
    154
    I haven't used the 17-55mm, I just used Bryan's excelent ISO 112233 resolution chart. Here is the link if you haven't used it yet http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ple-Crops.aspx.

    John.
    Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by FastGass View Post
    I haven't used the 17-55mm, I just used Bryan's excelent ISO 112233 resolution chart. Here is the link if you haven't used it yet http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ple-Crops.aspx.

    John.
    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...

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Terra Firma
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by 2484Stryker View Post
    Thanks for the reply. Do you find that you use the 17-55 predominantly over the 17-40?
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •