EF-S 17-55/2.8 Vs EF 17-40/4 L

Fussyfez

Fussyfez

Messages
65
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,


Just browsing mpb, musing various 'fast' upgrades to my kit 18-55.

The price of these two lenses is very comparable, with the non L winning on paper, being a 2.8 and having the extra 15mm, but I'm wondering about IQ, would the L be noticeably sharper? Or would the extra DoF gained from the 2.8 be more desirable, plus the extra low light performance.

It would be used as a general everyday lens, as I say, a direct upgrade from the kit 18-55.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


Edit



It would be going on a 600D, but obviously i may fancy a FF in the future, so that tips it towards the L.
 
Last edited:
If you buy the 17-40mm f4 to use on an APS-C camera you are clearly mad and men in white coats will come and take you away and you'll never be seen or heard of again.

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle lens to use on 35mm equivalent cameras and on APS-C it becomes a lens of rather pedestrian specification and a rather bizarre choice, IMVHO, when compared to the various 17-50mm f2.8's from Sigma, Tamron and Canon themselves.

Stop being silly and buy a 17-50mm f2.8.

:D

PS. I didn't see that last bit about going FF but that's sometime/if/when/maybe... Buy the f2.8 and if you go FF sell it.
 
Last edited:
:D

Shows how much of a noob I am still haha, the specs and price kind of jumped out at me, but it makes sense that the L is designed for FF.

Thanks for the response, made me smile, have a :beer:
 
The 17-55 is an absolute peach. It's a corker and if it were in FF and weather sealed, it would also be an L lens. They're worth looking at used...
 
It seems like a great lens for the price second hand, just a shame that id only be adding to my EF-S collection that will all need replacing as/when/if I go full frame.

In all honesty I probably won't be going FF for a couple of years at least, so it's not a huge issue.


Thanks guys.
 
When I had a Canon APS-C the Canon 17-55mm wasn't out when I bought a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and if making the choice today I'd still buy the Tamron or maybe the similar Sigma f2.8 as they're more compact than the Canon and a lot cheaper. The Canon may be optically better, I honestly don't know, but if it is better I bet the more compact and much cheaper third party lenses are nearly there :D
 
It seems the tamron is the cheapest, with the sigma bang in the middle. It would be nice to save money on the 17-50/55mm f2.8 to put towards a 300mm f4 L.

I'll see if I can get my hands on a sigma to try out.
 
you could check dyxum.com its for sony stuff, but the tamron and sigma stuff will be the same pretty much
 
landwomble said:
The 17-55 is an absolute peach. It's a corker and if it were in FF and weather sealed, it would also be an L lens. They're worth looking at used...
Click to expand...
This, absolutely. It's a terrific lens.
 
I ask the same question a few years ago and after a lot of research I went with the Canon 17-55 2.8. Don't let the lack of a red stripe fool you, this is one fantastic lens. The build quality is not as good as the L lens but the image quality is. It's a no brainer if you ask me. You might be able to save some money on another lens but unless you just can not afford it don't skimp on your glass to save a few. That's just my opinion of course.
 
shaylou said:
I ask the same question a few years ago and after a lot of research I went with the Canon 17-55 2.8. Don't let the lack of a red stripe fool you, this is one fantastic lens. The build quality is not as good as the L lens but the image quality is. It's a no brainer if you ask me. You might be able to save some money on another lens but unless you just can not afford it don't skimp on your glass to save a few. That's just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...
As above, the IQ of the Sigma and Tamron gets close, but the focus motor is in a different league.

It depends whether you're shooting test charts or using it in dark rooms on tricky (everyday) subjects.
 
I had the 17-40 on crop, fairly uninspiring. It just wasn't that special, although still a superb lens.

I bought a tamron 17-50. Much better, nicer range and being f2.8 better for my needs. But the autofocus and I didn't get on. I simply don't like lenses where the focus ring moves during auto focus.

Traded for the 17 55 canon, best move I made.
 
shaylou said:
I ask the same question a few years ago and after a lot of research I went with the Canon 17-55 2.8. Don't let the lack of a red stripe fool you, this is one fantastic lens. The build quality is not as good as the L lens but the image quality is. It's a no brainer if you ask me. You might be able to save some money on another lens but unless you just can not afford it don't skimp on your glass to save a few. That's just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

It's not just a few quid though is it? As far as I can see the Canon is the thick end of £300 more than the Tamron and then there's the difference in bulk which would matter to me as I'm just not into big fat attention grabbing kit and if other kit can get somewhere near the performance at reduced bulk that'll probably be the way I'd go.

I used to be on the opinion that small differences in kit mattered but these days I'm of the opinion that they usually don't unless you are pushing the boundaries of what the kit can do. In many instances I think that differences between lenses may be invisible or at least not significant in the vast majority of final images for the vast majority of people. Usability is another factor and I can relate to a dislike of rotating focus rings.

Found a little write up...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top