Canon 17-40L or Canon 17-55 f2.8?

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
This choice is killing me! I'm honestly stuck. The IS of the non L is a huge attraction for me, but the 17-40 is both cheaper, better constructed, and has the full frame capability (no plans to move to full frame though)

Anyone have any input? I'm getting awfully frustrated! Lens will mostly be used for landscapes, conceptual work, etc etc etc... I tend to stick to primes for low light, and a 50mm f1.4 blows the socks off the 17-55f2.8 for low light performance, minus that versatility of course...

Anyone have any input?
 
I think I would go for the 17-55 f2.8 if you are staying with a crop body.
I had one when I had a 30d and it is a lovely lens. Now I have a full frame body I also have a 17-40 but its shorter range means it is used less, as I also have a 24-70 (and a 24-105, but thats another story, and I cannot afford to keep both..)
A nice situation to be in, assuming you have the cash to buy one or the other !
 
I've thought about the same thing.

The only case for the 17-40L is if you have two cameras, one FF and one crop, and then it would double its purpose as a UWA on a FF and a standard zoom on a crop.

If you've got the cash and have no intention of buying a FF go for the 17-55 IS. I've not personally tried it but everyone says it's the best thing since sliced bread.
 
I can either comfortably yes, it's just... I cant help thinking a 17-40 + 50mm f1.4 would be a nicer setup, than the 17-552.8, especially since I imagine the 17-40 holds its value much better than the 17-55...
 
I'll probably get shot for this, but with such wide angles you don't really need the IS unless of course your intending to use the lens in low light conditions without raising the ISO too much to hold the IQ. I ended up with the 17-40 as I have a multitude of bodies with various crop factors and I needed the lens to fit all bodies. I've not been disappointed with my choice and its also been a great walk about lens too. Hope this helps a little (y)
 
RedTele said:
What about when shooting wide angle indoors?
Click to expand...

It's mostly for my traveling next year. I'm spending a year on the continent hiking across the Pyrenees, Alps and Carpathians, visiting all the major towns and cities along the route of course. So I won't be taking many indoor low light shots. I'll have a very lightweight tripod with me which I can use for static indoor shots with the 17mm end of the 17-40. And for street shots at night, the 50mm f1.4 would be a better choice than the 17-55 wouldn't you say?
 
Canonman II said:
I'll probably get shot for this, but with such wide angles you don't really need the IS unless of course your intending to use the lens in low light conditions without raising the ISO too much to hold the IQ. I ended up with the 17-40 as I have a multitude of bodies with various crop factors and I needed the lens to fit all bodies. I've not been disappointed with my choice and its also been a great walk about lens too. Hope this helps a little (y)
Click to expand...

I figure I'll be using my tripod for a vast majority of my lower light panoramas etc... And my primes for night/street etc...

Not to mention I'm comfortable at 3200 ISO with my 7D, which should give me some flexibility.
 
Don't have any experience of the 17-55 but have just got the 17-40 and it seems great. I think the L glass does make a difference, and I don't think you will miss the IS to be honest.
 
I did find the IS handy at times when shooting at the long end of its range, but have to agree that it is not a massive attribute, but the 2.8 aperture is useful !
 
I have the 17-40 and 50mm f/1.4 combination and it works very well. I'd recommend it.
 
I am not sure I understand getting the 17-40 if you have no plan to go full frame. The 17-55 is faster, has a greater range and has IS. The picture quality is superb. I would definitely get one over the 17-40 on crop. On a recent trip to India I did some street photography late at night during a festival and the 17-40 would have just not coped; my 18-50 f2.8 siggy struggled but the 17-55 would have been ideal. A lot of the shots would not have been suitable for a 50mm f1.4. On a crop, for the quality and versatility the 17-55 is king.

The l doesn't automatically make a lens the best thing to buy! ;)
 
Last edited:
If you can hand hold that steady to render the IS of no assistance then get the 17-40

Makes a world of difference to me though and wouldn't swap my 17-55 for anything else
 
I'm in similar position, although I have a 10-22 and the kit 18-55 - so some duplication and overlap at focal lengths.

The image quality looks pretty close to me, looking at photozone on crop sensors.

17-40
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/448-canon_1740_4_50d?start=1

17-55
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1

I'm leaning towards the 17-40L because I prefer the build quality, non extending zoom barrel, the hood is compatible with my 10-22, a filter makes it weatherproof.

Ive heard of dust and IS failures on the 17-55, however I also want this lens so I dont belong in either camp - I just want to make the correct purchase. Image stablised f2.8 sounds like a dream setup :)

Maybe the 17-40 is a bit more robust for travelling, esp with the filter up front? Paired with the 50mm at 1.4 sounds alright to me!


Andy
 
I've not owned the 17-40 but can compare the 17-55 on a crop and 24-70 L on FF and crop and from an IQ point of view there is nothing in it.
The build is pretty solid too and I can only think it would break if knocked or dropped quite hard.
As I say I haven't owned a 17-40 but the 17-55 compares well with L glass .
 
It would be a non issue, Id go for the 17-55 2.8, if the build quality wasnt so questionable. I guess after using L lenses, EF-S just feel like tacky rubbish in the hands. Not to mention I hate the extending zoom barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top