Canon 17-40 on a crop body

T_J_G

T_J_G

Messages
5,102
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Right I was all set to buy a Sigma 10-20, until I started using my kit lens again (18-55 IS) and though maybe I'd be better off replacing that.

I'm looking at the 17-40mm Canon L lens as a replacement for it,and wondering what it would be like on a crop body. I currently have a Canon 1000d, 50mm 1.8, the aforementioned kit lens, and a 70-200 F4L.

My budget is a strict £600 (using Amazon prices).

I will upgrade my body at a later date but wanted to get lenses first, not sure whether I'll go 5D mkII or 7D but we're talking about 12 months time.
 
I used a 17-40 on my crop body (50D) and it was a great landscapes lens, even on crop. Absolutely pin sharp, fast to autofocus and very good build quality. On crop it is the equivalent of a 27-64mm lens which is a little too short for a walkabout. Still, i would use it on a crop body :)
 
mark1616 said:
I would rather go Canon 17-55mm f2.8 if you can stretch the budget a little, if not then something like the Tamron/Sigma 17/18-50mm f2.8.

Obviously if going full frame then the 17-40 L is the only one that will work on that.
Click to expand...

THe budget won't stretch unfortunately and to be honest the buiild of the 17-55 worries me! Especially at that price!
 
I'd be tempted by the 15-85 or 17-50 Tamron over the 17-40L TBH...
 
Mark Anthony said:
You use a kit lens and a 50 1.8 on a 1000D and you're worried about build quality?

The 17-55 will feel like an L if you're used to using those.
Click to expand...

But I'll be upgrading my body at some point so want to buy decent gear that will last.

Maybe the Tamron 17-50mm is the way to go and put the extra cash towards a new body!
 
I regularly use a 17-40 on both ff and crop bodies, and it's great. Plenty of good used ones around, and you can usually get a warranty for no extra. Walters of Merthyr have one at £449, which sounds good. I got a used 70-200L from them a while back, which came with a 12 month warranty, but this may not still apply. Great firm to do business with, I found.

No idea if the 17-55 holds its value, but chances are you'll get roughly what you pay when you sell the 17-40 on.
 
A wider zoom range and much wider aperture make the 17-50mm f2.8's much more attractive IMVHO.

I always wonder if the 17-40mm f4 would attract so much APS-C user interest if it didn't have the L badge (he said cheekily.) :D
 
T_J_G said:
Am I right in saying this is the one I want? Non-IS?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-17-5...TF8&coliid=I3AA9YAE9OWYU6&colid=2ITXN2NC66BGI
Click to expand...
Yup, that looks right.

strumstrum said:
I guess that's personal choice, both mine were non vc and I remember reading on here somewhere that the non vc model was preferred..
Click to expand...
It is supposedly sharper wide open. Compare them at different focal lengths/apertures on synthetic resolution charts here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
Just another little thumbs up for 17-40 on a crop. Hardly ever came off the camera and when I made the change to 5D mk2 it stayed with me. I think it's a great, reasonable price, built like a tank lens.
 
personaly i dont think its a bad idea if your gonna upgrade your dslr body later. Its gonna be like putting a supercharged engine in a Skoda :p
 
Hotshots said:
personaly i dont think its a bad idea if your gonna upgrade your dslr body later. Its gonna be like putting a supercharged engine in a Skoda :p
Click to expand...

What that, wishing I had put it in a VW :love:

Seems like I've got a choice to make, doesn't help being the most indecisive person ever!:thumbsdown:
 
woof woof said:
A wider zoom range and much wider aperture make the 17-50mm f2.8's much more attractive IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. When I had my 40D I couldn't afford the 17-55 initially and bought the Tamron. Very good for the money. I eventually ended up selling it and getting the Canon 17-55 though. A better lens but reflected in the considerable extra cost.

woof woof said:
I always wonder if the 17-40mm f4 would attract so much APS-C user interest if it didn't have the L badge (he said cheekily.) :D
Click to expand...

Again, fully agree. I have a 17-40 now when I need something wider than the 24-105 (which is rarely I have to say). It is a good lens for sure but other than the sealing, the build standard and physical appearance is remarkably close to the EF-S 10-22.

One of the things that eventually drove me to the 17-55 on crop was that I found the max focal length just a bit short (50mm vs 55mm). 40mm, for me at least, just wouldn't be long enough for a general purpose walk-about lens.
 
If it helps at all...

This is a test shot with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non VC) on a Canon 20D. Whole image followed by 100% crop.

IMG_4640.jpg


IMG_4640c.jpg


I think that looks pretty good for a wide open shot.
 
Personally-speaking, I find the 17-40 a bit of a pain on a crop body, but nice on FF.

I use 24-70 most often (given that I do weddings, that figures) but the 17-50mm from Tamron is good, just a shame it's not FF-friendly.

One thing about the Tamron is that it's almost TOO sharp, I don't find it a very flattering portrait lens!

Cheers,
James
 
Moos3h said:
Personally-speaking, I find the 17-40 a bit of a pain on a crop body, but nice on FF.

I use 24-70 most often (given that I do weddings, that figures) but the 17-50mm from Tamron is good, just a shame it's not FF-friendly.

One thing about the Tamron is that it's almost TOO sharp, I don't find it a very flattering portrait lens!

Cheers,
James
Click to expand...

Now there's a complaint you don't hear very often! Wouldn't the world be a nice place if all lenses suffered from that fault? And also I'd like the chance to complain about a piece of equipment - any piece - being too cheap. :lol:
 
I've got the Tamron 17-50 on my 7D, and it's peachy, but I have thought about a second hand 17-40L...

I tend to do more up-close sports photography and generally on days where weather is reasonable so a f4 aperture isn't going to be problematic. What attracts me is the USM focussing, my Tamron isn't always spot on and it's a bit noisy compared to my veeeery lovely 70-200 f4L which has the USM... The nature of the sports I do often requires quick initial focus and accurate tracking, something the 7D & 70-200 combination seems to do almost flawlessly.
 
I use the 17-40 on a crop body for just about all my landscapes and it suits me fine, great lens IMHO. At the end of the day I guess it depend on just how wide or long you want to go as to which lens you go for. As long as you realise that a 17-40 will give you a 27-64 FOV on the 1.6 cropper then it a good choice.
 
I also liked using the 17-40 on a cropped body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top