Canon 17-40 F4L vs EF-S 17-55 F2.8

[MJ Stebbings]

Right, I'm looking at getting a wider than 24mm lens in the new year, and I had the 17-40 F4L down as the lens I want.
However, after reading so much good about the 17-55 F2.8, I've been considering a change of heart.

I know the extra wide aperture would be helpful for low-light work, but not really sure I would need the extra for the use it would get and I've been happy shooting at F4 for most of my low light work.

Again, the other thing to consider is the fact its an EF-S lens. I'm currently looking at upgrading to the 7D, however there is nothing to say that in the future I may also tie this with a full frame 5D and thus rendering this lens as a "7D only" lens and limiting my kit.

However, if the optics and IQ are better than the 17-40, would it be worth it? I mean, I have 2 24mm lenses and on a 5D would be wider that the 17mm on a APS-C sensor.

EDIT: and I can't forget that (new from warehouse express) the 17-55 is £155 more expensive than the 17-40. Is it worth that much extra, when considered with the above?

Advice would be appreciated

 

[arad85]

Hmmm... I know you have the 24-105. It's going to depend. Whilst the L is a lovely lens (see the photos I posted here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=367709) I do think the 17-55 is a better choice on a crop camera. One of two things will happen if you buy the 17-55.

• You'll use the 24-105 as a walkabout and only occasionally put the 17-55 on
• You'll use the 17-55 as a walkabout and put the 24-105 on when you want to go longer.

If you think it's the first of these, just get the 17-40. If you think it's the latter, you'll probably find a 17-55 + 70-200 F4L a better combination for your crop cameras.

We have a crop and full frame. We will always have one EF-S lens for shorter focal length duties on the 7D.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Thanks mate

To be honest, The main thing I want a wide lens for is group shots. I find the 24-105 F4 will be more than enough for my walk-about/wedding lens. I've been using my 24-70 and 70-200 and feel that the 24-105 (once its all sorted) will cover my needs perfectly for most of my shooting. 24mm has been good for my groups but I feel that something more intended for wide shots on an APS-C should be an investment.
I did find that I needed something wider at the last wedding I shot, as they were in a tiny little room and I needed wider rather than longer.

 

[DazJW]

I think your worrying about a hypothetical sensor format change a minimum of two body upgrades down the line is pointless at this stage but even if it wasn't do you feel you'd need 17mm on a full frame considering you already have two FF compatible lenses that go as wide as 24mm? 24mm on a FF body will give a field of view the same as 15mm would on an APS-C body.

If it was a straight choice between the two without any contextual concerns I'd be going for the 17-55mm because of the larger focal length range, one stop faster maximum aperture, the addition of IS (even if you don't feel you need it it has a creative use in certain circumstances like anything else does) and what appears to be substantially better image quality (judging by the charts on The-Digital-Picture.com). It being EF-S doesn't matter until you actually do upgrade both of your bodies (I see you have two APS-C bodies) at which point you can sell it anyway, you're not stuck with it for life.

However, you already owning the two 24mm-capable lenses complicates things a bit. Are you looking for a lens that will stay on your camera or a lens to just switch to when you need the wider field of view? If it's the latter I would have thought you'd be better served buying a 10-22mm or something of that nature rather than having the focal length overlap. Though if you're wanting to leave it on-camera and not change lenses the two 24mm-capable lenses don't need to factor into things as much.

 

[arad85]

I think your worrying about a hypothetical sensor format change a minimum of two body upgrades down the line is pointless at this stage but even if it wasn't do you feel you'd need 17mm on a full frame considering you already have two FF compatible lenses that go as wide as 24mm? 24mm on a FF body will give a field of view the same as 15mm would on an APS-C body.

17mm is awesome on a FF (I have a 12-24 lens too but it isn't as sharp as the 17-40).

If it's the latter I would have thought you'd be better served buying a 10-22mm or something of that nature rather than having the focal length overlap.

This is a good point.

 

[dubcat]

i have the 10-22 and 17-55 on my 50d. I am also considering a move to 5dmk2 at some point myself. I think that second hand camera prices are not so fantastic that i would sell my 50d. I think I would rather keep it around as a backup. If I did that I would want to keep it with my 17-55 2.8 lens. It is stunning. Crystal sharp and fantastic colours.

For me the extra wide aperture is not about low light so much. It is about the creative options it gives me in terms of playing with depth of field.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

I think your worrying about a hypothetical sensor format change a minimum of two body upgrades down the line is pointless at this stage but even if it wasn't do you feel you'd need 17mm on a full frame considering you already have two FF compatible lenses that go as wide as 24mm? 24mm on a FF body will give a field of view the same as 15mm would on an APS-C body.

Its not really that far down the line. I'm hoping for a 7D about Jan time and the 5D in the latter part of next year.
That was one of the questions. At present, I need something that will go as far as 17mm. As I say, they are for group shots. I dont really want to go for something like a 10-22 as I feel that when I'm stood there shooting groups, I would feel limited at 22mm if its just for a small group. Yes, I have feet and can zoom by walking etc, but the idea alone makes me feel restricted.

If it was a straight choice between the two without any contextual concerns I'd be going for the 17-55mm because of the larger focal length range, one stop faster maximum aperture, the addition of IS (even if you don't feel you need it it has a creative use in certain circumstances like anything else does) and what appears to be substantially better image quality (judging by the charts on The-Digital-Picture.com). It being EF-S doesn't matter until you actually do upgrade both of your bodies (I see you have two APS-C bodies) at which point you can sell it anyway, you're not stuck with it for life.

But there are the concerns. I'm not buying a lens to sell on 12 months after buying it Not sure that the extra 15mm will make much difference to me, IS isnt needed as the chances of me using that type of lens in low light where I cant use flash is minimal. The image quality is something that does concern me, but is it something that makes a massive difference for the price difference and the limit on the fact is EF-S?
The lens will get used around f8-F16. Should I just plump for a 17-85 IS if i'm going to not be bothered about putting it on a full frame camera and save myself £400 (Second Hand Prices)?

However, you already owning the two 24mm-capable lenses complicates things a bit. Are you looking for a lens that will stay on your camera or a lens to just switch to when you need the wider field of view? If it's the latter I would have thought you'd be better served buying a 10-22mm or something of that nature rather than having the focal length overlap. Though if you're wanting to leave it on-camera and not change lenses the two 24mm-capable lenses don't need to factor into things as much.

It really is just a lens to switch to when needed.

 

[DazJW]

If you're never going to need f/2.8, IS or the extra focal length range, have firm plans to be moving to a full frame camera and aren't interested in having a lens and selling it later then the difference in image quality (the 17-40 doesn't look terrible, just that the 17-55mm looks better) can't counter that.
To be honest I think you've already decided on the 17-40mm but have been momentarily distracted by the 17-55mm

 

[MJ Stebbings]

To be honest I think you've already decided on the 17-40mm but have been momentarily distracted by the 17-55mm

As I said before, it was the number one choice until I kept reading people rave about the 17-55 IS. The 16-35 F2.8 is well out of the budget range regardless of how good it may be so it was between those two.

I just want to make sure that the IQ and the price difference of the 17-40 is good enough to ignore the 17-55, even though it has IS, wider aperture and extra focal length (which probably wont benefit me at all)

 

[PCPhil]

One of the biggest risks in having the 17-40L is that the full frame beesties will start appearing in your dreams and suddenly your bank balance will reduce

 

[MJ Stebbings]

One of the biggest risks in having the 17-40L is that the full frame beesties will start appearing in your dreams and suddenly your bank balance will reduce

Hahaha, they already do

 

[Jackwow]

Its not really that far down the line. I'm hoping for a 7D about Jan time and the 5D in the latter part of next year.

Why do you want to go 50D > 7D > 5D in the space of a year? Why not just go 50D straight to 5D?

 

[MJ Stebbings]

I dont, I want to go:

30D -> 7D
50D -> 5DmkII

 

[POAH]

17-55 is wider, longer, faster has IS and is sharper than the 17-40. no better standard lens for a crop canon.

if you are going to get a FF canon in say the next 6 months then I would say not to bother buying any since a 17-40 on FF gives an ultra wide FOV.

 

[arad85]

I dont, I want to go:

30D -> 7D
50D -> 5DmkII

OK... so when you have 5D2/7D combo, what lenses are going to be used on them?

We have:

17-40L/24-105L: Used exclusively on 5D2
15-85: On the 7D 95% of the time
12-24, 50mm, 100mm, 70-200L, 1.4x TC: used on either camera as and when.

If I'm honest, the only time I actually use the 7D is for action shots and that's normally with the 70-200 and perhaps with the TC on. If I'm doing anything landscape/wide/walkabout oriented, the 5D2 is the camera of choice. The only reason we have the 15-85 is that Ms arad85 uses the 7D as her walkabout camera. In fact, if it were only me that was using the 7D, the 70-200 would live on it permanently.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Well, I would get the 7D first, and the plan is to look at getting the 5DmkII around this time next year as long as finances are ok, it might not be for 18 months (or when the 5DmkIII is released )

So, to start with it would be the 7D as the main camera with the 50D as back-up, so all lenses would be used on the 7D and 50D if needed. That is why I need the wide lens.

However, the 5DmkII would be used for low light conditions (church interiors, dim lit areas) and the 7D for general shooting for the extra "reach" that it gives.

However, when I'm on holiday, I only like to take one body, and while most of my shooting is wildlife etc (I'm a zoo-a-holic), I dont want to leave myself short and only have the 24mm and miss out on some landscape shots (I'm stuck with that senario at the moment )

 

[MJ Stebbings]

My planned holiday kit will be:

7D, 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400

 

[arad85]

My planned holiday kit will be:

7D, 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400

See, that's interesting. If I were taking only one body, I'd take 15-85 and 100-400 (which I don't have BTW)... Whilst the 15-85 isn't as fast as the constant f4 of the 17-40/24-105, it has a brilliant IS system and is great as a walkabout lens.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

See, that's interesting. If I were taking only one body, I'd take 15-85 and 100-400 (which I don't have BTW)... Whilst the 15-85 isn't as fast as the constant f4 of the 17-40/24-105, it has a brilliant IS system and is great as a walkabout lens.

See, thats the thing. I already own the 24-105 and have no intention of owning the 15-85. Again, its an EF-S lens and I think I would rather have the 17-40.

I dont do that many landscapes so would prefer the 24-105's range over the 15-85's

 

[woof woof]

What you should do is spend a fraction of 17-40 or 17-55mm money on a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It's a cracking lens, super sharp and much better than the 17-40mm (IMVHO) and costs a lot less than either Canon lens and you could even pick a good used one up.

Once you get a 5D you can think about what you want and if you do want a lens that goes wider than 24mm you can get a 17-40 or something else at that time.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

I'd rather stick with Canon glass, moving away from 3rd party stuff, including selling the Sigma 24-70

 

[woof woof]

Madness, IMVHO. Some 3rd party lenses are the best mass market lenses you can get in Canon fit so why limit yourself to inferior product just because it's made by Canon?

Still, to each his own.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

Because, IMVHO, after using Canon lenses and 3rd party lenses, I find the AF better on all the canon stuff I've used compared to the 3rd party stuff and that is something thats a real advantage to myself. I also find that with Canon glass, the focus is spot on 95% of the time, with 3rd party stuff i'd say 60-80% of the time.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

Madness, IMVHO. Some 3rd party lenses are the best mass market lenses you can get in Canon fit so why limit yourself to inferior product just because it's made by Canon?

Still, to each his own.

I wouldn't say either 17-40 or the 17-55 are inferior to the Tamron 17-50 by any stretch.

I personally don't see the point of the 17-40 on crop but on FF I love it. Brilliant value too. Many other love it on crop.

I used to own the Tamron 17-50, I bought it when I was a bit cash constrained and I eventually traded up to the 17-55.

You are right, the Tamron is a great lens for the money but for me there was three things that irritated me about it.

Firstly, the AF was loud and sometimes, especially in lower light, could hunt quite a bit. This sort of negated the benefit of constant f/2.8.

Secondly, the lack of a USM motor for focusing (see 'firstly') meant no full time manual focusing. Admittedly, I didn't need to do this very often but it was still a minor irritation.

Finally, I actually found the missing 5mm from the long end quite limiting as a walk about lens. Having the 18-55 kit lens previously didn't help in this respect.

I can honestly say that once I got the 17-55 it outclassed the Tamron in every respect, as it should for the price difference. I didn't suffer any buyers remorse at all. A look through my previous posts will confirm I'm a big advocate for the 17-55.

 

[MJ Stebbings]

I wouldn't say either 17-40 or the 17-55 are inferior to the Tamron 17-50 by any stretch.

Yeah, even if the Tamron was a little better, Inferior is quite a strong word to use

I personally don't see the point of the 17-40 on crop but on FF I love it. Brilliant value too. Many other love it on crop.

Can I ask why?

Firstly, the AF was loud and sometimes, especially in lower light, could hunt quite a bit. This sort of negated the benefit of constant f/2.8.

So, not that versatile really then?

Secondly, the lack of a USM motor for focusing (see 'firstly') meant no full time manual focusing. Admittedly, I didn't need to do this very often but it was still a minor irritation.

How did you find the speed when focusing compared to the 17-40?

I can honestly say that once I got the 17-55 it outclassed the Tamron in every respect, as it should for the price difference. I didn't suffer any buyers remorse at all. A look through my previous posts will confirm I'm a big advocate for the 17-55.

Putting all the stuff I've said into consideration, how do you compare the two regarding value for money and the fact that I may be adding a full frame camera at a later date?

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

Can I ask why?

For me personally the 17-40 on crop is just way too short as a General Purpose lens. Similar to the way that i found the Tamron 17-50 a bit short the 17-40 is a shorter still at the long end. It is also only f/4. A constant f/4 maybe, but when you consider the 1/(focal length x crop factor) rule for usable hand hold-able shutter speed and the lack of IS it just doesn't make sense against the 17-55. It's one advantage is weather sealing but unless you have a 7D then this is irrelevant anyway as the body wont be commensurately sealed. Ignore the presence of the red ring. It isn't relevant.

So, not that versatile really then?

No in good light it is a good lens. I was lucky to buy a very sharp copy and it produced many great images on my then 40D. Just in lower light and when tracking moving subjects the AF could struggle.

How did you find the speed when focusing compared to the 17-40?

Focusing speed isn't as good as either the 17-40 or the 17-55. Canon USM powered AF is generally very good IMO.

Putting all the stuff I've said into consideration, how do you compare the two regarding value for money and the fact that I may be adding a full frame camera at a later date?

I've always said, buy for what you are doing now not what you might be doing in the future. The 17-55 seems to hold its value well on the second hand market. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if I still owned a Canon crop body I'd still own a 17-55.

Why don't you rent a 17-55 and 17-40 for a couple of days and try them back to back. Ignore what they look like physically and look at the images they produce. I'll guarantee you'll prefer the 17-55.