17-40 + prime or 17-55 IS for my 7D?

FreeloaderJoe

FreeloaderJoe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
510
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
My choices at the moment are the 17-40L F4 + a 28mm f.18

or

a 17-55 f2.8 IS for my new 7D

I really can't decide. Really like the idea of having L glass (build quality...i have a real ability to destroy cameras).

Equally really really want to be able to shoot in low light and the 2.8 is going to give me massive flexibility...then again i'll have the 28mm when it gets really dim.

What would you do. The 17-40 is cheap enough that i could afford the 28mm aswell. Want the prime mainly for shooting film so a nifty fifty is no good to me.
 
There is not a huge amount of point having the 17-40 on a crop camera however if you are thinking of going full frame then it transforms.

The 17-55 is supposed to be an L lens in all but name :thumbs:
 
This is a tough one, i am trying to work out what the 17-55 would give you over the other 2.
I guess IS is a bonus if you think you will need it, i imagine as you went for a 7D that landscapes are not really your thing so i cant see the 17-40 really being much of a benefit over the 17-55.
i think i would say for for the 17-55 and look for a cheap Nifty fifty for low light.
 
You could always go for a cheaper 17-50mm f2.8 and a fast prime. You should be able to manage that for the price of the Canon 17-55mm f2.8.
 
Take the red ring off the 17-40L and you wouldn't think twice about it.

17-55 2.8 is better on a crop camera. No brainer.
 
i've got the 17-40 on my 7D, lovely lens which I always use for landscapes
 
what makes the 17-55 better then the 17-40 other then the aperture and the IS?

Personally, two lenses for the price of one, that would be my option.
What would you need the lower aperture for if you are doing landscapes? Thats what a tripod is for :thumbs:
 
extra 15mm made that much difference?
If it was range i was worried about, i'd get the 24-105L, its 5mm shorter on the wide end but 50mm longer.
 
I just bought the 17-55 IS f2.8 so you can guess where my vote would go. Ask Kerso for a price I was so impressed with his competitive pricing I ended up ordering from him. Can't wait for it to arrive!
Good luck deciding!
 
MJ Stebbings said:
extra 15mm made that much difference?
If it was range i was worried about, i'd get the 24-105L, its 5mm shorter on the wide end but 50mm longer.
Click to expand...

Well obviously its not for you Mike. I had the 17-40 and the 24-105 and now I just have the 17-55 as the range makes it a very versatile lens on an APS-C sensor.

The 24-105 annoyed me on FF with its distortion at the wide end and offers 40% less field of view on a crop sensor than the 17-55 at the wide end. That's quite a lot.

For me, I was looking for a lens that was as close to a 28-70 "standard" zoom from the film days for a crop sensor and the 17-55 does that very well. Its designed for APS-C cameras and delivers in spades.

Why do you think its not the right idea? Is it just the lack of a red stripe?
 
True, the 24mm does suffer distortion on FF cameras, which surprises me since they package it with the 5D cameras.

How did you get the 40% less FoV? I'm not being funny or anything, just wondered how you work that out as i think i might have just confused myself. (Had a very hard football match last night and my whole body and soul is just not working properly today :lol: )
 
Basic approximation as 24/17 = 1.41 = 41%

But, checking the stats from Canon: 17-55 is max view of 68 degrees and 24-105 is 74 degrees but the figure for the 24-105 is on FF so dividing by 1.6 gives 46 degrees.

74/46 = 1.48 times.

The second should be more accurate but it shows it is significant either way. Remember, 7mm at the wide end is much more significant that 7mm at the long end.
 
Ah yes, good point. 7mm being more significant on the wider end then the longer end.
See, told you i'm totally not with it today! :lol:
 
just to be a pain but it's also 7mm difference which is 17*1.6= 27.2mm instead of 24 *1.6 = 38.4 which means that the difference is magnified by the crop value too.

sorry :p

I would go for the 17-55 too. the build quality is not up to L glass apparently but it will compliment your 7D nicely
as for f4 is fine..you use a tripod....well for landscapes only I would go L glass and shoot at f8 or f11!
the f2.8 is very handy for portraits, low light etc. 88mm@f2.8 would make a very handy portrait lens
 
I used to own the 17-55 when I had my 40D. An absolutely belting lens and an ideal partner to the 7D or any other crop for that.

Optically, it is as good as most zoom L's. Build quality wise it is nothing like an L. It is still good though so don't let that put you off.

I have the 17-40 (and 24-105) now with a 5D2 and the 17-40 is great of FF but on crop it would be the 17-55 every time.
 
Just to add my name to the list of 17-55..........

I asked a similar question a few months back but I was after (I thought!) the 24-70L on my 7D.

What I ended up doing was getting a 17-55 IS and a Sigma 24-70!

What I can say is that the 17-55 is a superb lens. Fantastic wide open. Lovely Bokeh. My mate Blo4t3r on here borrowed it for his 7D as he was going through the same process as you and bought one today!

For me if it's a crop then it's that lens everytime and you will really use that extra stop, trust me - it blew me away on recent hols to Bali in low light!
 
Why would the 17-55mm be more suitable on a crop body than the 17-40?? I think it is more about preference than suitability.

If you need the qualities of one lens over another then that's the one you go for....

If it's only the L status that's holding you back then you might be interested to hear that most reviewers of the 17-55 2.8 IS lens could not understand why this lens was not given said status! Purely because it was EF-s methinks??
 
17-55mm definitely. It is the most used lens on my 7D, having replaced a 24-105mm. The only downside is that the 17-55 does not have "L" build quality.
 
It really depends what it is for, and future upgrade paths. Both are sensible (maybe except 28mm prime - make it 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm macro and it makes more sense IQ-wise and extends the range).

If you are 100% sure you won't get FF then 17-55 is the way.
Otherwise 17-40mm is very attractive purchase. For other things 24-70mm may a better option. 40, 55 and even 70mm are very limiting even on crop for portraiture and wildlife, but 70-200mm comes to rescue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top