Which of these two canon lenses?

J

joelhall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Name
joel
Edit My Images
Yes
hi folks, havent posted for a long time, so just popping in with a question.

ive taken the plunge and forked out for a dslr for laura, and decided against the kit lens in favour of something better. the two im split between are the canon 17-55mm f2.8 and the 17-40mm f4.0L.

given theres only the one (?) stop down between the two, is it worth getting the faster lens or the better quality lens. how well would the latter perform in low light conditions (such as a wedding reception this summer where i know shell want to fill up a few memory cards, hehe) at f4.0?

the price is only a matter of a couple of hundred, so assuming this is negligable, which would be a better option? ive heard the 17-55 has some dust and flare issues, and dont know how much of a problem this is reading reviews (they dont go into too much detail about this).

anyway, thanks in advance for the help.
 
personally... i would go for the 17-55, quality wise, its meant to be great, but mainly for the 2.8 good-ness... :) both for the extra stop of light, and the depth of field benifits...
 
Having experience of both these lenses, 17-55 on crop (40D) and 17-40 on FF (5Dmk2), I would unequivocally go for the 17-55 over the 17-40 on a crop body.

They are both great lenses but the 17-55 with its f/2.8 and IS really shine. Don't let the lack of the red-ring put you off. While it isn't L build quality, it is still well put together and the image quality is certainly up to L standards.

As for the dust and flare issues you mention. I always used mine with the Canon hood and had no problems with flare. As for dust, I bought mine second hand (about a year old) and it it had one single (small) fleck of dust behind the font element. I used it for just over a year and when I sold it on (with very little loss) it had no more dust then when I started. I did always have a (quality) filter fitted though which reputedly minimises the issue.

That said, the dust issue seems to be a cosmetic problem only and has no effect on image quality which is superb.
 
thanks alot guys, that pretty much makes up my mind for me :lol:
 
I assume that right now you have an xxxD (eg 500D) or an xxD (eg 50D) camera, or a 7D, as only these will accept the 17-55 lens. If in the future you ever decide you want a full-frame (1DS, 5D) or 1.3x crop (1D) body then the 17-55 f2.8 won't fit on it, whereas the 17-40 f4L will fit on anything.
Rgds
Jonathan
 
yeah i had a sneaking suspicion that might be the case, though at the moment she has a cropped body. sadly i cant afford the gucci stuff for the forseeable future.

out of interest would a third party lens be a good solution? obviously image quality is a must, so im looking for a very good lens rather than something similar which might compromise on quality for cost.
 
I've owned both and I currently have the 17-55. It's a cracking lens.

Yes the 17-40 could be used on FF too, but it won't be a standard zoom on FF so if you move that way, selling the 17-55 and getting a 24-70 would be the more sensible approach IMO
 
You might find this interesting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18870834

I too am in the 17-55 vs 17-40 quandry and I am almost certain now that I will be buying 17-40 - mainly because I need the build quality. For most folk who won't, I would reccommend 17-55 over it because you get the extra stop (and IS!) and it is widely regarded to deliver slightly better IQ.

Presuming Laura won't need the better build quality, get the 17-55.

I think it mainly comes down to whether you need absolute stonking IQ or robust build that won't attract dust and can take a battering or two. 17-40 is also very good at controlling flare, better even thatn 16-35 which is more than twice the price.
 
vignetting? the plot doth thicken. anyone else had this problem with the lens, as its the first ive heard of it? to quote:

'1) Light falloff (vignetting) is a HUGE problem, not just in the corners but even along the edges. It's definitely very noticeable in the images, especially those with a bright blue sky. Honestly, this is the worst I've ever seen of all of the lenses I've ever used.'

fair or not?
 
Well, it's probably comparable to the 17-40 on full frame. Using full frame (EF) lenses on a non full frame body (which you will have if you are thinking of getting the 17-55) is a bit of a cheat because you only see through the 'centre' of the lens. The outer parts - which are almost always optically the weakest - are simply cut out of the picture (no pun intended). With the 17-55, the image circle is smaller so the sensor basically sees right to the edges.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't all that long ago where some full frame lenses were almost black in the corners and people never complained.
 
joelhall said:
vignetting? the plot doth thicken. anyone else had this problem with the lens, as its the first ive heard of it? to quote:

'1) Light falloff (vignetting) is a HUGE problem, not just in the corners but even along the edges. It's definitely very noticeable in the images, especially those with a bright blue sky. Honestly, this is the worst I've ever seen of all of the lenses I've ever used.'

fair or not?
Click to expand...

Not fair at all IMO. I never had a discernible problem with vignetting with mine on a 40D, even wide open at 17mm. There is some, as there would be on any such lens, but to call it a 'HUGE problem' is very misleading. Even if it is a problem on a particular shot it isn't difficult to deal with.

Have a look here for a comparison.

trencheel303 said:
I too am in the 17-55 vs 17-40 quandry and I am almost certain now that I will be buying 17-40 - mainly because I need the build quality.
Click to expand...

This reasoning confuses me a little bit as unless you are going to be using it on a 7D (which has some degree of weather sealing) then the extra merits of the 17-40L's build quality won't be commensurate with your camera body. The 17-55 is built just as well as a 40D, let alone a 450D.
 
thanks for the replies folks. needless to say im clueless about cameras and canon lenses. i still use an olympus om-1 :lol: but i do have a panasonic digital, which i cant use to save my life!

one last question as a matter of interest. supposing shes only interested in photos (not video) andn wants the best iages she can get... 450d, 550d, or 50d? like i say a matter of interest as shes already picked out a 450d, but i cant get my head around what the real differences are.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
This reasoning confuses me a little bit as unless you are going to be using it on a 7D (which has some degree of weather sealing) then the extra merits of the 17-40L's build quality won't be commensurate with your camera body. The 17-55 is built just as well as a 40D, let alone a 450D.
Click to expand...

Lenses can last decades with proper care, bodies would be lucky to last a single decade, and most are upgraded within 5 years to a newer model. Plus, there are far more opportunities for crap to get inside the lens (front element, focus and zoom rings - which are moving constantly) than the camera body.

I've already gone and got some crud in my 50mm the other day from the beach (makes a scratching noise as the focus wheel goes around, but not during AF thank god) but the camera body is absolutely fine. My reasoning is based off of my experiences and the fact that the lens is easily the most vulnerable part of the camera. I can't afford a 7D either nor do I want one; it's an 18MP horror with an AF system I don't need or want.
 
trencheel303 said:
Lenses can last decades with proper care, bodies would be lucky to last a single decade, and most are upgraded within 5 years to a newer model. Plus, there are far more opportunities for crap to get inside the lens (front element, focus and zoom rings - which are moving constantly) than the camera body.

I've already gone and got some crud in my 50mm the other day from the beach (makes a scratching noise as the focus wheel goes around, but not during AF thank god) but the camera body is absolutely fine. My reasoning is based off of my experiences and the fact that the lens is easily the most vulnerable part of the camera. I can't afford a 7D either nor do I want one; it's an 18MP horror with an AF system I don't need or want.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I would agree that a lens is any more vulnerable than the body. Not counting the big hole on the front, bodies are covered in nobs and buttons which all are potential ingress points, along with all the construction seams.

For full weather sealing, (like many other L's) the 17-40 requires a filter to be fitted. This will also mitigate against many of the potential problems that the 17-55 is vulnerable too.

Also, if I were keeping any lens a decade or more, I would probably factor in a service (clean/calibration) regardless of whether it was an 'L' or not.

Personally, on crop, I would find 40mm too short for a GP lens. To be honest, I found 50mm too short on my old Tamron 17-50 which was one of the reasons I eventually traded it against the 17-55.
 
one other thought springs to mind... how about the 24-70 f2.8l? surely you get the best of both with only an equivalent 11mm loss at the bottom and a 24mm gain at the top?

any thoughts? a i way off the mark here?
 
joelhall said:
one other thought springs to mind... how about the 24-70 f2.8l? surely you get the best of both with only an equivalent 11mm loss at the bottom and a 24mm gain at the top?

any thoughts? a i way off the mark here?
Click to expand...

On the face of it, the 24-70 is £200 more (a little less when you factor in the inclusion of the hood with the L).

It depends on whether the wide end is a priority or not. 11mm from the wide end is quite a lot.

The 24-70 is a seriously hefty lens too compared to either the 17-40 or 17-55.

That said, if I had a grand spare it would be nice a addition to the bag.
 
really i wanted to get what we could call a 'general' lens... having said that she wont be doing much landscapre photography (although i doubt 17m really qualifies at wide angle on a cropped body anyway), if any at all, mostly street photography, nature close ups (flowers, still life and the like), shooting people (such as at a wedding reception) and so on. would this lens be any good for this?

the crop factor would make it the equivalent of a 38-112, so is a 40mm-ish lens going to be too long do you think?
 
well the L glass is better build and quality, the the f2.8 is a faster lens its up to you, I would choose the L lens I think!
 
VivaVida said:
well the L glass is better build and quality, the the f2.8 is a faster lens its up to you, I would choose the L lens I think!
Click to expand...


The image quality of the 17-55 is as least as good, it is one stop faster (facilitating low-light focusing), and has three stop IS.

It is really only the build quality and price of the 17-40L that gives it any advantage over the 17-55.
 
trencheel303 said:
I too am in the 17-55 vs 17-40 quandry and I am almost certain now that I will be buying 17-40 - mainly because I need the build quality.

I think it mainly comes down to whether you need absolute stonking IQ or robust build that won't attract dust and can take a battering or two.
Click to expand...

It can indeed take a battering but your body [450D - avioding any of the potential confusion here] won't. The 17-55mm will take much more 'battering' than your 450D will handle - it'll probably take more than an xxD too.

The 5D's/7D's can take it but if 'taking a battering' is what you need I strongly suggest you buy a 1 series (or 7D/5D). 1's are built to last and match-up to and exceed the build of L's.
 
joelhall said:
really i wanted to get what we could call a 'general' lens... having said that she wont be doing much landscapre photography (although i doubt 17m really qualifies at wide angle on a cropped body anyway), if any at all, mostly street photography, nature close ups (flowers, still life and the like), shooting people (such as at a wedding reception) and so on. would this lens be any good for this?

the crop factor would make it the equivalent of a 38-112, so is a 40mm-ish lens going to be too long do you think?
Click to expand...

It sounds like 24-105mm f/4L IS would make you very happy. You can always add Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 when you need wider. I doubt f/2.8 is necessary for general shooting when there is IS and high ISO compared with the old film days. There are primes for the super shallow DOF.
 
I own the 17-55 f/2.8 and it is an amazing lens..........many reviews state the IQ is superior to the 17-40, and at least on par if not better than the 24-70 L f/2.8 and 24-105 L f4. I personally think the f/2.8 is irreplacable as a general walkabout lens, for when you are in low light or a wide aperture for DoF. May not seem like a big difference between f/2.8 and f4 on paper but when in practice, the difference in shutter speeds that are achievable is substantial.......and then the IS is an added bonus on top fo that.

The only downside is the build quality, as it isn't as robust and has an extending barrel for zooming. The dust issue isn't a big problem, I've had specks of dust on the lens since when I bought it, and never has one shown on any images.

Now for the really bad news.............:(

Unfortanately, my IS on the 17-55 has recently developed a fault........and when zooming between ~40mm - 55mm, the IS frantically shakes the viewfinder and makes a loud noise.......... this seems like a design fault because I've read numerous users online posting the same fault. If the lens was under warranty, it'd obviously be covered but since mine was bought second hand and not.........I will have to pay £160 to repair it, or just use the lens without IS.

Unlucky for me because I leave for my trip to Japan in 2 days and now I have a half-broken walkabout lens. The good thing is that it is a f/2.8 so it is still fully usable without the IS, and the optical quality is still first class.

So 17-55 owners and potential buyers beware............this could randomly happen to you at any moment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top