Canon 17-40L v Canon EF-S 17-55IS

I think the mirror on the 10D hits on the EF-S lens, I can remember from when I had my one.
 
Certainly is. Excellent for landscapes on a crop body.
 
Chaz Photos said:
You can use ANY lens on a 10D EF or EF-S
Click to expand...

The 10D does not have an EF-S mount. The first camera in Canon's line-up with the EF-S mount was the 300D, which came after the 10D.

At the time, this upset existing 10D owners a great deal because this meant they couldn't use the kit lens that came with the 300D.

People actually went ahead and "hacked" the kit lens to use it on a 10D:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

So in conclusion, the 17 55 f/2.8 IS will not work on a 10D unless you are prepared to undertake the same surgery, which I would not recommend.
 
Thanks for the replies, I am aware that the ef-s does not work on a 10d body. The reason for asking is that when I do upgrade my old 10d body, I am hoping to upgrade my lens also. I had always thought I would want the 17-40l, but not I am not sure, as I have read so much about the ef-s 17-55is.
 
If you're going to be upgrading, I'd suggest the 17-55 IS. The 17-40 is slower, and has less range and no IS. What you're really paying for is the wide-angle on a full-frame body, in my eyes although the red ring makes it very appealing, on a crop sensor the 17-55 is just a better option! I'm sure some will disagree though, but I'd take the f/2.8 every time!
 
Simple choice really. If you want f/2.8, IS and the slightly extra range and are prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid premium for it, get the 17-55. If not, get the 17-40. Both superb optical quality. All this nonsense of paying for a full frame lens and putting it on a crop body is a red herring. You pays yer money, you takes yer pick.
 
Made me laugh! People should have asked (or you should have said) what body you were planning to use, before people jumped to the assumption that it would be the 10D (as stated in your profile).

For me, the 17-55IS!
 
surely that's the purpose of a discursive forum...oh look!!

I'm going for the 17-55 too when I get the money, so that gets my vote
I don't foresee full frame in my immediate future, so makes sense for what I shoot.
the 17-55 is supposed to be pin sharp and almost L glass quality, but probs lacks the weather proofing of L glass and can't be used of course on 1 series bodies so doesn't get the nice red ring.
 
I'd go with the 17-40L personally.

If you're doing landscape work then chances are you'll be using a tripod, so no need for IS (besides who really needs IS on a lens with such a short focal length!)

Similarly doing landscapes in the main, how often would you use an aperture of F2.8?? You're going to be mainly around the F11-16 mark.

Here is a recent thread of mine with some landscapes taken with the 17-40L. I'm not a landscape photographer in any way shape or form but seeing as these are all handheld (you can tell from the wonky horizons!) I think its a pretty great lens :thumbs:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=170606

The money you save can be put towards a very good tripod and head.
 
When I was looking to buy a wide angle lens I looked at a lot of the pics I had taken with the 24-105mm which (on FF) was the widest I had at that time.

I checked to see what aperture I was using at 24mm because I could have gone for 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40mm f4.

I ended up going for the 17-40 mm f4 for exactly the reasons 350wedge makes.

How often would you need to shoot below f4 at that focal length?
Why do you need IS on a landscape lens?

If it's a general purpose lens you need and you envisage using it a lot at f2.8 either for subject isolation or shooting in low light then the 17-55 has more to offer.

If you really do want it for shooting landscapes then the 17-40mm is a cracker.
 
For landscapes on a crop body I would be thinking either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16, personally.
 
jnO said:
For landscapes on a crop body I would be thinking either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16, personally.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I find 17mm plenty wide enough for landscapes 99% of the time on a crop body and quite often use the 40mm end of my 17-40. Rarely use my 10-22mm these days. 'Landscapes' does not necessarily equal 'superwide', despite what the interweb will have you believe.

As stated above, if you want the lens primarily for landscape work, where it will be stuck at f/11 on a tripod for a lot of the time, the 17-40 is hard to beat.
 
What people want out of a lens and a shot is of course going to vary.
I am not saying it is written in stone that you have to use a UWA for landscapes merely that in my opinion a 10-22 or similar would offer another option and another range of shot.
It completely depends what the user wants. If he is going to be using the 17-40 at 17mm most of the time and rarely venturing above then a wider focal range will give him more options. If however it is to be used as a general walkabout as well as a landscape lens then yes the 17-40 would offer a greater range. IQ between the 2 is negligible as is cost :)
 
Thanks for all the replies guys. Although I have limited knowledge on the two lenses, my own thoughts were that for landscapes the IS and f2.8 were not required. However some info I have seen on the 17-55IS appears to suggest that the IQ is fantastic, although from reading your replies it would appear that the IQ for both would be on an equal par.
As a matter of interest, the body I am looking at as a possible upgrade is the 50d (unless I win the lottery!). At the rate Canon are churning out new bodies, the temptation is to wait and see what comes next, or what existing ones fall in price, but I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.
 
Peter10d said:
Thanks for all the replies guys. Although I have limited knowledge on the two lenses, my own thoughts were that for landscapes the IS and f2.8 were not required. However some info I have seen on the 17-55IS appears to suggest that the IQ is fantastic, although from reading your replies it would appear that the IQ for both would be on an equal par.
As a matter of interest, the body I am looking at as a possible upgrade is the 50d (unless I win the lottery!). At the rate Canon are churning out new bodies, the temptation is to wait and see what comes next, or what existing ones fall in price, but I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.
Click to expand...

I have the 17-40mm on a full frame camera and it's a joy to use. Depends whether you need the extra stop of f/2.8 though.

It really is an exciting time in the world of DSLRS; prices are coming down and technology is trickling down to entry level models and the higher end cameras are getting better.

ISO levels are at such a stage that say 10 years ago would have been impossible to predict and/or imagine :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top