17-55 USM IS or 17-40L

FreeStream

FreeStream

FreeStream

Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2004
Posts
13,498
Im looking to buy a walkabout lens to go with my 40D.

These are the two lenses im looking at.

Im extremely tempted by the 17-55 as its F/2.8 AND IS but the 17-40 is an L glass but its "only" F/4...


Im going to Iceland on a school trip and in the next 4 months and im getting my setup sorted.

Cheers
 
I've got the 17-40 and its very sharp wide open, and built like a brick in typical canon L style, a lot sharper than the 24-105.
The 17-55 i've not used and can't comment, but is £200 more. it also gets 9.2reviewed on FM which is better than the 17-40 which gets a 9.
I think you'd be impressed with either
 
The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is probably one of the best lenses you can buy for a crop body. The build quality of the 17-40 is far superior though, and in terms of sharpness they are very close if you read the reviews. Just really boils down to whether you need the extra stop and the IS

If you ever think you'll be upgrading to a 5d in the future then go with the 17-40L
 
iGiDK said:
The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is probably one of the best lenses you can buy for a crop body. The build quality of the 17-40 is far superior though, and in terms of sharpness they are very close if you read the reviews. Just really boils down to whether you need the extra stop and the IS

If you ever think you'll be upgrading to a 5d in the future then go with the 17-40L
Click to expand...

No 5D/7D won't be for a while yet.

And I do some party photography so F/2.8 and IS would be a good idea...

So ill save for that :)

Cheers :)
 
I just had this 'dilema' myself. My local camera shop was fantastic with me and I initially took the 17-40L and it was exactly what you expect from an L lens. Took a fair number of shots and no complaints.

The shop was happy for me to return it and try the 17-55 and I took some more shots but in fading light. At this point the IS (and f2.8) showed it's worth and this is the lens that I kept.

The 17-40 is a good deal at the moment though with the cashback.

The 17-55 isn't as nicely built as the 17-40 (no point pretending) and doesn't have the little red stripe but I had to make a decision one way or another.

Can't say much more than this at the moment as I only bought the 17-55 at the weekend.
 
the only reason the 17-55IS is NOT an L lens is because Canon don't label any of their EF-S lenses with L because they are not compatible with full frame bodies, the IQ is as good as an L though :)
 
wez130 said:
the only reason the 17-55IS is NOT an L lens is because Canon don't label any of their EF-S lenses with L because they are not compatible with full frame bodies, the IQ is as good as an L though :)
Click to expand...
The only reason it's not an L lens is because it's a consumer lens ;)
Same as 28-135 IS, 17-85 IS, 10-22 etc etc

An 'L lens' is more than just image sharpness !!
 
Any canon lens which is an L, must contain at least one fluorite element and ground aspherical elements, the build quality is just to compliment the optical quality and durability..
 
The 17-55 is definitely EF-S. It's also a cracking lens, very sharp, 2.8 and IS. Asides from full frame what more could you want?
 
A picture is worth a thousand words

lensgz4.jpg


EF-S
 
Last edited:
wez130 said:
If it is actually an EF-S then my previous statement still stands as canon won't label a lens with an 'L' unless it fits a full frame body.
Click to expand...
I've read this also and it makes perfect sense. They can't logically label a lens as an "L", and thus a "professional" grade one, when it's not compatible with their top of the range bodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom