17-55 2.8 or 17-40L for Crop....

M

_MikeyB

Messages
346
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
This has probably been covered a thousand times already, but after reading all the threads, I'm still unsure which lens to purchase.

I mainly use primes, and shoot portrait photography more than anything else.

But - on the off chance I venture out and about, I really need a small zoom, or even a wide prime to sit on my Canon 50D.

The problem I have is, in a couple of years time, I am wanting to upgrade to full frame, so should I buy a 17-55 2.8 IS now to sit on my crop, then flog it when I upgrade, or should I just get the 17-40L and save the hassle.

I really want the sharpest and quickest lens possible!! (don't we all) and don't mind paying....

Saying that, I could stretch to the 16-35.... mmm.....??

Any advice would be appreciated!

Mike
 
_MikeyB said:
The problem I have is, in a couple of years time, I am wanting to upgrade to full frame, so should I buy a 17-55 2.8 IS now to sit on my crop, then flog it when I upgrade, or should I just get the 17-40L and save the hassle.
Click to expand...

Unless you can get 17-55 very cheap the 17-40mm makes more sense in this case. You could always get Tamron f/2.8 as a stop gap.

The copy of 16-35mm II I tried on 40D (!) was really poor up to 24mm and I heard similar opinions from other people. 17-40mm did look much sharper! Canon has some really bad issues in FF UWA department.
 
there is a big argument about this very thing going on in another thread
I would go for the 17-55 but seeing as you want to upgrade to FF, then the L glass would be a better investment I think...unless you then want the 16-35 IS 2.8 :p

if so it's ........
 
I've had the 17-55 for about 2 years and its a fantastic lens. I've never owned L glass but got so many great portrait photos at weddings with it and got some nice landscape stuff too!

The IS means you can get away with some mad slow shutter speeds:D
 
Thanks for the comments.

I've hired the 16-35 as a tester and I wasn't dissapointed.... maybe that's the plan then.
 
I went with the 17-55 - compared to the 17-40 it's a stop faster, has IS, more length at the long end, and is arguably sharper.

I plan to upgrade to FF at some point (although no fixed date as I have less than no money) but used prices are that bouyant that there's not much of a hit to be taken when selling SH.
 
17-40 has better contrast and colours in my opinion, cause if you need faster then 16-35.
 
Worry about full frame when you get there. Get the 17-55 and I bet you never do ;)
 
_MikeyB said:
I mainly use primes, and shoot portrait photography more than anything else.

But - on the off chance I venture out and about, I really need a small zoom, or even a wide prime to sit on my Canon 50D.

The problem I have is, in a couple of years time, I am wanting to upgrade to full frame, so should I buy a 17-55 2.8 IS now to sit on my crop, then flog it when I upgrade, or should I just get the 17-40L and save the hassle.
Click to expand...

A lot can happen in a couple of years time. How many shots will you take in the time it takes you to actually move to another lens mount?

Personally, I think the EF-S 17-55mm would suit your needs better than the 17-40L due to the longer reach, IS and faster aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top