Which lens? 17-40L or 17-55?

philxthomas

philxthomas

Suspended / Banned
Messages
293
Edit My Images
Yes
After some opinions here. I'm using a 550D and am looking to get as new lens.

I only have a 50mm 1.8 and really need a wide angle for video and general photos. I have narrowed it down to 2 lenses, the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 and the EF 17-40mm f4 L lens.

I don't really need the longer focal length as I have to 50mm so I'm not really taking that into account. The main deciding factors are the larger aperture on the 2.8 and the better image quality on the L lens.

So is it worth losing the larger aperture for the better image quality of L glass? It's only a few stops and I shoot moving stuff so usually use a smaller aperture in the day time to keep things in focus.

I haven't used either lenses but have borrowed the 16-35mm L lens and was amazed with the results.
 
Not really an option. Is the 16-35 gonna give much better results at the same focal length and aperture?
 
I have the 17-55 and it is an amazing lens, so sharp and you get f2.8 aswell.
I am more than happy with mine, I did look at the 17-40 as an option but after alot of advice from people on here i got the 17-55. If you are not planning going FF any time soon then the 17-55 is the lens.

spike
 
If you need a Wide Angle lens I would of thought you should be looking at the 10-20mm range.

Years ago I bought a 17-40 for my 400D and ending up selling it to get a Sigma 10-20 which is superb lens if you can get a good one.
 
Yeah meant wide angle compared to my 50mm, 17-40/55 is a good all-purpose lens I think.
 
17-55 f2.8 is supposed to be a very good lens and much better on a crop body than the 17-40L.
 
philxthomas said:
Not really an option. Is the 16-35 gonna give much better results at the same focal length and aperture?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not on a crop body.

Steeps said:
17-55 f2.8 is supposed to be a very good lens and much better on a crop body than the 17-40L.
Click to expand...
Yup. Don't buy a lens designed as a wide angle on full frame when one designed specifically for the crop sensor is likely to be better for 99% of cases. You get an extra 15mm and IS with the 17-55...
 
boliston said:
Save for the 16-35 :cool:
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't - only 35mm max and no IS and 82mm filters. The lens is questionable at best on FF at wider apertures, and many are already waiting for its replacement.

17-55 IS will serve just fine and produce top results - just needs to be treated carefully. It will also obsolete 50/1.8. But incompatible with FF

17-40 is a better built alternative - better colours, good centre sharpness (but crappy FF corners at wide apertures if you go that route), slightly cheaper, but no IS and inferior range, and only f4.
 
The 17-55 is a very clear winner unless you plan to go full frame. The IS and 2.8 aperture are a massive massive advantage. It represents much better value for money in my opinion
 
I have the 17-40 on a crop and its wide enough for my needs. Love the quality finish of this lens, razor sharp too.
 
philxthomas said:
I only have a 50mm 1.8 and really need a wide angle for video and general photos. I have narrowed it down to 2 lenses, the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 and the EF 17-40mm f4 L lens.

I don't really need the longer focal length as I have to 50mm so I'm not really taking that into account. The main deciding factors are the larger aperture on the 2.8 and the better image quality on the L lens..
Click to expand...


Hi

It is believed (not fact as far as I know) the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS has L series optics in it, but it doesn't have the construction build of an L and Canon won't name an EF-S lens as an L series, but it's as near to an L in the EF-S range as you're going to get.

From the 2 lenses you are looking at, I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 IS, if you can afford the price difference
 
I've used the 17-40 on 1.6x crop, 1.3x crop and FF and I found it to be a good lens on all three formats, albeit possibly a bit wide on FF. My main use for the lens is landscapes, so bear that in mind.
 
Thanks for all the advice, leaning more towards the 17-55 now as I kind of forgot about the IS.
 
IS is not too important on such a short focal length lens, so don't put it too high on the list of priorities unless you do a lot of video as mrthingyx points out..
 
I have a 17-55 and although the 550 is a nice camera, L glass is worth it more IMHO for FF cameras.
if you want to spend 600 quid (2nd hand) then great.
if you want something nearly as good, the tamron VC f2.8 are good
2.8 isn't good only for low light, it's great for depth of field too
so if you're into portraits and are shooting natural light sometimes, then 2.8 on a 55(85-90mm on cropped) and IS is a really winner I think
 
stevewestern said:
IS is not too important on such a short focal length lens, so don't put it too high on the list of priorities unless you do a lot of video as mrthingyx points out..
Click to expand...
That really depends what you shoot.... IS is very useful if you're inside taking pictures of stately homes where light is at a premium (for instance).
 
I've used both

17-55mm Is the clear winner for me - much more useful range - F2.8 - IS. Still very well built. Only drawback vs the 17-40mm is weather proofing. But your body doesn't have that anyway!
 
I don't even know why you're comparing these two - the 17-40L is an ultrawide lens for fullframe bodies, while the 17-55 is a normal lens for crop bodies. The latter has f/2.8 and IS as well, so unless you're planning on upgrading to fullframe in the near future, the 17-55 is the lens you should get.
 
I have had a 17-40L for ~5yrs and really do like it. I've used it with a 300d, 40d, and now 5dmk2. I always was going to go full frame though, so if that's not a plan for you, then it's probably not the first choice. However, it's best feature for me is the build quality and weather sealing. It is impressive, and if you treat kit like i do, then it's very handy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top