17-55mm F2.8 IS - worth upgrading to from my 17-40L?

Take your pick from these :)

For me the build quality of the EF-S lets it down.


Canon-General-Purpose-Zoom-Lenses.jpg


60432363.IMG_3233ed.jpg


Fully Extended

60432373.IMG_3261ed.jpg
 
Last edited:
A lot of times :)

Disregarding Event stuff as they're all long range, I use 2,8-3.5 a lot indoors when family are round or when I go round friends/fam etc.

See this is just recent activity alone majority indoors!

indoors.jpg


Not forgetting that the EF-s is 17mm on the 40D instead of 27mm which the 17-40 L would be!
Plus the 17-55 wipes the floor with the 17-40 at f4 at all zooms for sharpness :)
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
A lot of times :)

Disregarding Event stuff as they're all long range, I use 2,8-3.5 a lot indoors when family are round or when I go round friends/fam etc.


Not forgetting that the EF-s is 17mm on the 40D instead of 27mm which the 17-40 L would be!
Plus the 17-55 wipes the floor with the 17-40 at f4 at all zooms for sharpness :)
Click to expand...

So people are sharp at 1/15 and minus 2 IS stops (1/4) ;)

EF-S lenses still need the 1.6x crop factor applying - 17-55 is 27-88mm ;)
Otherwise you're saying the 10-22 is actually 10mm.

Sharpness is debatable.
http://www.pbase.com/tinu/17_55
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/fourpoundshowdown
 
Well isn't the whole point of efs (and sigma DI etc) so that when used on a crop body the indicated FL is what you get since they're shortback focus lenses and will only work on dslr bodies that are compatible with that lens mount system ?

!

P.S. my 17-55 is sharper than the nifty at 2.8 50mm !

Various examples posted over the past few weeks in other threads in this section.
 
mrk said:
Well isn't the whole point of efs (and sigma DI etc) so that when used on a crop body the indicated FL is what you get since they're shortback focus lenses and will only work on dslr bodies that are compatible with that lens mount system ?

!

P.S. my 17-55 is sharper than the nifty at 2.8 50mm !

Various examples posted over the past few weeks in other threads in this section.
Click to expand...

no the entire point is they are smaller and cheaper to produce at them focal lengths.....you still have to multiply them.
 
So my understanding of these di/efs/dx lenses has been completely wrong all along?


It's a sad day today :(


Edit*

So this means in fact that I can get the 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 then since the fl difference isn't that much between them and the 17mm end of the 55 efs ! Damn not only have I made myself quite *** fool but also opened up new doors for getting the L I always wanted !
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Edit*

So this means in fact that I can get the 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 then since the fl difference isn't that much between them and the 17mm end of the 55 efs ! Damn not only have I made myself quite *** fool but also opened up new doors for getting the L I always wanted !
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the EF-S 17-55 fl is similar to 24-70/24-105?

if you add the crop factor to the EF-S 17-55 it becomes 27mm - 88mm which is similar to 24-70mm on full frame (5D/1Ds) but on your 40D it becomes 38mm - 112mm.

Unless you were thinking of getting full frame body and the 24-70 / 24-105 L lens, you still seem to be very confused.
 
crop factor on 40D is 1.6x still isn't it so how does the 17-55 become 38mm on the 40D ?

17mmx1.6 = 27.2mm
 
the 24-70mm becomes 38mm - 112mm and the 24-105 becomes 38mm - 168mm.

you simply multiply ALL lens with x 1.6 on canon xxxD / xxD bodies and 1.3 on 1D and 1.0 on 5D/1Ds (full frame)

if you read carefully I said the 17-55mm becomes 27mm - 88mm and I was stating the focal length of the 24-70 on your 40D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom