Alternative to Canon 17 - 40 L Lens...

Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I've set aside a few quid to upgrade my gear and have recently taken deliver of a used 7D, which I am very happy with. I'e budgeted a total of £800 for a new body and lens, so (after the 7D) I have £430 to play with.. maybe a little more...

I've always fancied having an L lens (who doesn't want a nice red ring to show off!?) and have been looking closely at some used 17 - 40 lenses, which would fit my needs from a focal length point of view and fit my budget... BUT...

.. and here's the but....

I've done some research and have heard that on a cropped sensor they actually aren't as sharp as one may expect - and sharpness is really what I am after. Alternatives are:

  • Canon EFS 17 - 55
  • Canon EFS 15 - 85
I've used a Sigma 17 - 70 for a few years, but it's not in great shape and is getting a bit temperamental.

Bottom line is I'm after the best lens possible for my set up and budget. I thought I wanted that L lens... but now I'm not so sure.

Thoughts, especially from other 7D users, would be welcome.

Thanks all,
 
Messages
1,070
Name
steve
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
When i used my 7d the efs 17-55 was without my main lens. Since moving to the 5d i don't use it nowadays, but a great combo
 
Messages
23,596
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#4
As above, the 17-55 is the best walkabout lens for a crop Canon. The fact it has no red ring doesn't seem to make a difference. It's better than the 17-40 in every way except build quality, where it is unfortunately a little behind.

Although if you want something special optically, the Sigma Art 18-35 1.8 is quite special.
 
Messages
22,851
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#5
What I had Canon's the 17-55mm f2.8 wasn't out and I went for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 although there's also a similar Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 is a bit of a big lump so personally I'd take a long hard look at the smaller and cheaper Tamron and Sigma alternatives. They may not be ultimately as good but the saving in bulk and cost could swing the balance. Actually at the time I owned the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 I thought it was the best standard range zoom I'd ever used, blisteringly sharp as I remember.

Whatever. I wouldn't touch the 17-40mm f4 as it's an old wide angle lens designed for FF and IMO just doesn't cut it on APS-C against the more modern f2.8 lenses.
 
Messages
5,634
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
#7
I had the 17-55 2.8 on my crop sensor Canon and absolutely loved it. Beautifully sharp and great wide open, it's the one lens I missed when I first went to full frame.

Some say that it only misses out on the "L" classification because Canon only put these on lenses for their FF range...


Buy it and you'll not regret it.
 
OP
OP
N
Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
Looks like we good have a winner. Not cheap though! Will look for a decent used model and see how I go. Thanks all
 
Messages
2,211
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
What sort of photography do you do?

How about the 16-35 f4 is?

Also future profs you if you go full frame.
 
Messages
2,498
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Ive had very poor experiences with 3 copies of the 17-55 f/2.8 over the years. I also had an amazing copy for about 5 years until i sold it to get a 15-85 (much happier with that lens).
Just my experience but id say make sure you can send it back if you arent happy with it. My most recent copy was quite soft wide open (and i know this is not normal) and AF was hit or miss. Mostly hit but my first copy was 100% hit.
what lead me to send it back was my STM lenses were better, and these cost a lot less. Maybe the 17-55 is getting a bit old and isnt quite as good on the 80D, who knows, but at least it wasnt decentred like the previous tow i had with my 60D.

The 16-35 f/4L is a lovely lens (on Canon rebate program for a few more days) but having used it on my 80D (i got it for my 5Dmkiii) i dont think its the best to cover a general zoom range.

Im not saying L lenses are overrated but they arent all equal, and one thing ive learnt over the years is dont get one just because its an L, at the expense of getting a lens you actually can use a lot.

I know this goes against the grain but if f/2.8 isnt really needed then the 18-135 STM or Nano can do very well and cover a lot more range. IQ is very good, mine beats the 17-55 i had recently on IQ most of the time.

Here is a comparison, both wide open.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
 
Top