Canon 17-40L vs. 17-55 IS dilemma

Messages
198
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 30D and by far my most used lens is my Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4. It's a great lens, but I've just had my work bonus and want to spoil myself to some L glass, which I've been thinking about for years. My Dad is a pro photographer and has the 17-40L on a 5D MKII. I've tried it on the 30D and was very impressed.

My main use for the lens will be landscape photography and architecture.

However, I've been reading around on here and can see that people are recommending the 17-55 F2.8 IS instead. At almost £200 difference in price, I was wondering whether it's holding out for a little longer and saving up some more cash, or waiting for a second hand one to pop up.

Has anyone used both of these on a 30D who can offer some advice?

Thanks in advance
Kate
 
IS and 2.8. Yes, hold out. I have a 5D2 and I use the 17-40 when the 24-105 (which is the same field of view as a ~15mm lens on a crop) runs out of view.
 
I've owned both lenses and the 17-55 2.8 is the better lens. It suits a crop body perfectly.

To get the equivalent focal length of the 17-40 on a crop body you need to be looking at the 10-22 which will give you something like 16-35 equivalent.
 
Kate, the 17-40 is designed specifically to be an ultra-wide angle on a full-frame body like a 5DmkII. When you stick it on a crop/APS-C body like your 30D, the 1.6x factor renders the focal length closer to that of a standard zoom (for that body). So, whilst the 17-40 can be used this way, it's so much better to get the lens designed specifically as a standard zoom for a crop body, i.e. the 17-55 2.8. More zoom range, wider maximum aperture for low light, IS to counter camera shake. And even though it may not be an 'L' in terms of build quality or red ring, the optical quality definitely is. I've been using one for the last couple of years on my 50D, so I can definitely say yes! Absolutely save the extra £200.
 
Last edited:
Kate - with your crop sensor - this is what I would have said so I'll just quote it, as it makes complete sense...

Kate, the 17-40 is designed specifically to be an ultra-wide angle on a full-frame body like a 5DmkII. When you stick it on a crop/APS-C body like your 30D, the 1.6x factor renders the focal length closer to that of a standard zoom (for that body). So, whilst the 17-40 can be used this way, it's so much better to get the lens designed specifically as a standard zoom for a crop body, i.e. the 17-55 2.8. More zoom range, wider maximum aperture for low light, IS to counter camera shake. And even though it may not be an 'L' in terms of build quality or red ring, the optical quality definitely is. I've been using one for the last couple of years on my 50D, so I can definitely say yes! Absolutely save the extra £200.

I've had both and the 17-55 is sharp as pin. The 17-40 is just spot on when you get it right and in the pouring rain (with the right body) it's a bonus but in all honesty - the 17-55 will offer so much more if your body takes a crop lens....
 
Yup, another vote for the 17-55 (I love mine :D )

The only time I'd recommend the 17-40 is if you're just about to move to full-frame (or a 1D), but if not then the 17-55 all the way.
 
I agree the 17-55 is the most sensible choice for you, I have the 17-40mm L and use it on my 5D mark II, however at the moment it is attached to my 7D fulfilling "standard zoom" duties which it has been doing very well indeed.

However if I didnt have a full frame camera I would have probably gone for the 17-55mm:)
 
Oh right, so very split opinions then :p I'm very unlikely to move to FF simply because I find them too heavy to lug around. If anything, I'll upgrade to a second hand 7D once the model is replaced.

Anyway, thanks for your opinions. The 17-55 IS is it!

Amazon are actually selling it cheaper than Kerso at the moment, shock horror! Seems like I need to put my 70-200L on hold for a little longer ;)
 
What I bought mine at the start of Jan, HDEW were a fair bit cheaper tham Amazon and Kerso. Great lens though, good choice ;-)
 
One thing to watch out for, Kate, is that the copy of the 17-55 available at a lower price than Kerso's is not actually sold by Amazon itself, but by a third-party reseller. The actual Amazon-fulfilled price is £743.98 at the moment (higher than Kerso's). The difference being that a lot of amazon resellers are known to sell grey imports, so the warranty could be dubious. I'm not saying the amazon reseller in this case is selling grey imports, but it may be worth emailing the seller and asking about the warranty that comes with the lens. For what it's worth, the warranty that comes with Kerso's stuff is pukka (Ian should pay me commission for stuff like this :LOL:)
 
Last edited:
Both are good lenses, 17-55 IS if you going to stay in crop factor APS-C otherwise if you planning to go into Full frame then 17-40 is a steal!
 
I noticed that the Amazon one wasn't actually Amazon before I clicked the button thankfully and have ordered with Kerso. I've had stuff from him in the past and trust him. This is a lot of money to entrust someone with so I'd rather do it with a known source. Thanks :)
 
Hi Kate

Don't rule out the Canon 15-85 either.Much better built than the 17-55 and offers a better range than either of the other lenses.It also has a very nice IS system.In IQ terms it compares very well against the 24-105L.For landscapes you don't really need the F2.8 of the 17-55 which is what you are paying for.

Cheers
Gary
 
Last edited:
Back
Top