cano 17-55 or 17-40 or........

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
hi guys i have been looking at the canon 17-55 and the 17-40 and not to sure what is best. Also been looking at the tamron and sigma versions and still unclear on what is going to be best for my money.
ideally im after using it for landscapes, night shots.
Any advice would be great.:thumbs:
 
I always wonder if APS-C shooters would look at the 17-40mm f4 if it wasn't an L :D

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle zoom for full frame cameras and on APS-C (IMVHO) it becomes rather... ho hum and personaly I just can't see why anyone would choose this lens over a 17-50mm f2.8 as with the latter you get a greater zoom range and a wider aperture. For me (for APS-C) it's a brain out decision and the choice should really be between the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with the 17-40mm f4 not on the shortlist.

Still, that's just me :D
 
woof woof said:
I always wonder if APS-C shooters would look at the 17-40mm f4 if it wasn't an L :D

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle zoom for full frame cameras and on APS-C (IMVHO) it becomes rather... ho hum and personaly I just can't see why anyone would choose this lens over a 17-50mm f2.8 as with the latter you get a greater zoom range and a wider aperture. For me (for APS-C) it's a brain out decision and the choice should really be between the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with the 17-40mm f4 not on the shortlist.

Still, that's just me :D
Click to expand...

Wow that was alot of words to digest! So the long and short of it is to cross the 17-40 of the list.
 
I've had both the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon, if you are a pixel peeper and you have the cash go for the Canon, if you are fine without the IS on the non-VC Tamron which is supposedly better in terms of IQ compared to the VC one and maybe not as good as the Canon version, but considerably cheaper and smaller go for it. Maybe you wouldn't like the range and you would need something even wider and you might get both Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 10-20 for the same amount of money you would pay for a Canon 17-55 :)
 
found a Tamron SP 17-50 mm F/2.8 AF Di-II LD XR for £200 but not sure if that is a good price. Im not a pixel peeper but i am obviously looking for quality in my images. I think the canon 17-55 go for about £500!
 
I'm looking at the Nikon equivalent. The local shop has a used one for £200 and MPB sell them for £180.
 
Bobby uk said:
found a Tamron SP 17-50 mm F/2.8 AF Di-II LD XR for £200 but not sure if that is a good price. Im not a pixel peeper but i am obviously looking for quality in my images. I think the canon 17-55 go for about £500!
Click to expand...

Oooh also just been looking at the 15-85 that could be an option. I have got a 28-135 IS at the mo but would like something to go a bit wider then 28?
 
woof woof said:
I always wonder if APS-C shooters would look at the 17-40mm f4 if it wasn't an L :D

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle zoom for full frame cameras and on APS-C (IMVHO) it becomes rather... ho hum and personaly I just can't see why anyone would choose this lens over a 17-50mm f2.8 as with the latter you get a greater zoom range and a wider aperture. For me (for APS-C) it's a brain out decision and the choice should really be between the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with the 17-40mm f4 not on the shortlist.

Still, that's just me :D
Click to expand...

And me! :)

The 17-40 is a decent L for FF.

The 17-55 IS is brilliant EF-S for crop.

I say this as a previous owner of a 17-55 (when I had a 40D) and a current owner of a 17-40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top