Canon 17-40 F4L vs 17-55 2.8IS

[Alan Sandham]

I have been really pleased with my 17-40L since I bought it just over a year ago. However, I sometimes find it not so good in poor light indoors and I have been wondering if it is worth upgrading to the 17-55 2.8 IS. Has anyone had the experience of trying both to make a comparison????

 

[karate-ka]

this image was taken in very poor sports hall light at iso 1600 24-70 at 2.8
it doesn`t quite answer your question about the 17-55 but it does show what a 2.8 can do.

Ian

 

[Alan Sandham]

Thanks. better than having to use flash. Now considering the Canon 15-85 IS which seems to have a much greater range and is smaller and lighter.

 

[grotty]

That will of course have a narrower aperture at the long end than the 17-40, so potentially worse in low light.

 

[ding76uk]

f4 vs 2.8. If you need more light, a no brainer. If you plan to stay crop it's worth the investment. Alternative would be the Tamron 17-50 for around £200 second hand. 17-55 f2.8 is considered an amazing lens and supposed quality of an L.

 

[Phil V]

I had the 17-40 for a while and it was a great lens as a wide zoom on ff, but on the crop body the zoom range wasn't wide enough to make it a good std zoom. The 17-55 is awesome and I wouldn't swap mine for anything whilst ever I have a crop camera. The 15-85 isn't really an alternative if you need the 2.8.

 

[Alan Sandham]

I had the 17-40 for a while and it was a great lens as a wide zoom on ff, but on the crop body the zoom range wasn't wide enough to make it a good std zoom. The 17-55 is awesome and I wouldn't swap mine for anything whilst ever I have a crop camera. The 15-85 isn't really an alternative if you need the 2.8.

I agree on that one also. the 17-40L would be a great all-rounder if it had the wide range on a crop camera.