Happy with my 17-40L but wish it were longer...

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by diane_stredicke, Sep 19, 2008.

  1. So I love the photo quality of my Canon 17-40L. It is wide enough for me (I have a Rebel XSi), but I wish that
    it were longer. What do you all think about trading it in for a Sigma 17-70? Any other suggestions? I have a
    Siggy 30mm and 50mm. Thinking of getting rid of my Canon EFS 10-22 (just too wide for most uses). I'd like to
    just have ONE walk around lens like the 17-40 only longer.
     
  2. A better choice on an XSi might be the EFS17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Great IQ, f/2.8, larger focal length range, image stabilization.
    If I shot a crop camera I'd head straight for that lens.

    Another option is the EFS 17-85mm IS lens, though it has its issues.

    Between these two, if image quality and low light performance are critical I'd recommend the 17-55; if having a bit more
    focal length range in a single lens at the expense of some IQ and low light performance is your thing the 17-85 could be
    fine.

    Dan
     
  3. -- "I'd like to just have ONE walk around lens like the 17-40 only longer."

    It depends on your budget and on how much longer you want that lens to be.

    I would consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8, the Sigma 18-50/2.8 or the Canon EFS 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

    Also, if you feel 50mm isn't long enough, the Canon EFS 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM. This lens has its limitations, but as a one-lens solution it works quite well.
     
  4. I just can't justify spending a $1000 on the 17-55. It only gives me 15mm more reach (I have the Sigma 30 and 50 for low light). I've had the 17-85 but didn't like the wide end at all.
     
  5. I'd love to hear from any owners of the Sigma 17-70. The quality from the 30 and the 50 are unbelievable...
     
  6. How about the new 18-200? lots more reach plus IS.
     
  7. Or sell off your 10-22 and put the $$ toward the 24-105 if you want to keep L's.
     
  8. I, too, would wait and see what the new 18-200 with IS is like. I think such a lens makes some sense, particularly when paired with primes for greater sharpness, contrast and DOF control at the focal lenghts where you want ultimate image quality and flexibility. The 17-40 is a very fine lens however. Incidentally it pairs very well with a 70-300 IS or 70-200/4L.
     
  9. [[I'd love to hear from any owners of the Sigma 17-70.]]

    I'm a 17-70 owner (on an XT) and I love it. I can't offer you photos of newspapers tied to trees or anything like that, but for me it's been a very nice upgrade from the kit lens.

    I'm sure a lot of 17-40 lovers would disparage the 17-70 for being a Sigma. They may or may not be correct. I've never shot with a 17-40 so I don't know how the image quality can directly compare.
     
  10. But Rob how do you know you if its a bad copy? You better test it.
     
  11. -- "I've had the 17-85 but didn't like the wide end at all."

    If the wide end was the only thing you disliked with the 17-85, you should have had a look on tools like ptlens to correct the relatively high (at the wide end) barrel distortion of this lens.
     
  12. Rob the 1 thing I personally don't care for with that Sigma is the variable aperture. Can you tell me where in the zoom range
    does it change from 2.8? I need a wider lens and I am leaning toward the Tamron 17-50 since I liked the 28-75 so much.

    By they way my comment above was a joke, I liked your comment about the newspapers. I must admit I used to be a little
    paranoid that way, I guess you gotta grow out of it.
     
  13. [[But Rob how do you know you if its a bad copy? You better test it.]]

    I test my lens every single day by using it and printing the photos I capture with it.

    All other forms of measurbation are a complete waste of time and energy.
     
  14. [[Rob the 1 thing I personally don't care for with that Sigma is the variable aperture]]

    I agree that this can be an issue, especially indoors, but then I remind myself of how much it cost and the fact that at 70mm it's still only f/4.5. So, compared to the 17-40 I get 30mm of reach with more aperture on the wide end and only 0.5 less on the long end. It's a lens that spends a lot of time on my camera.

    Re: your comment comment above. I sorta figured it was a joke, and my reply seems rather strong. It was not meant to read as harshly as it appears to.
     
  15. I shoot with the Sigma 17-70. I love the lens. Its built very well, and produces sharp images with very little barrel distortion on the wide end. So little in fact, I never bother to fix it. It is built very well. I really have nothing bad to say about this lens, it lives on my 40D. However, like mentioned above...I have no L glass to compair to. I do have 3 Canon lenses (28-135 which is crap, 50 1.8 and 100mm 2.8), and I must admit that the Sigmas color/contrast is not as good as my 2 Canon primes. Photoshop boosting works wonders though. I would recommend this lens to anyone on a budget, or to anyone else that my need the zoom range. I have the older non-HSM version of this lens.

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=840820 Here aer some samples taken with this lens that I have shot. Disregard the 2 shots of the old tractor wheels, noise was purposely added for an older film look.

    Derrick
     
  16. Nice photos Derrick.

    I guess I'm just in that spot where I wish that Canon made an L quality or close to it 17-70 lens! For myself I find 17 (most of the time) plenty wide even for landscape.

    Tommy - loved the 24-105 but it just wasn't wide enough. I'm trying to have one walk around lens and then use primes for more creative work - thus the 30mm and 50mm Siggy. I also have the 85mm 1.8 Canon.
     
  17. I started my business in 1996 and it ran until 2003. During that time and up to now, I have had at least eight Canon bodies and I
    don't know how many lenses including Sigmas, Tamrons, one Tokina and of course canon consumer lenses. I have a fourteen year old Canon 50
    1.8 lens and a 70-200 2.8L or the same age. A year or two ago I sold a 28-70 2.8L of
    that same vintage and I still regret it. These lenses still operate like new and look new. At least a couple of my Sigma's broke, a
    couple had slow AF, and all lenses were subject to hard wedding and newspaper use. A couple of my Canon consumer lenses
    were superseded by L lenses. I believe that the 70-200 2.8 will die with me. It is by far the best and cheapest lens investment
    that I have made if you amortize it over the fourteen years I have had it, evaluate the abuse it has taken including a hard drop on
    a cement sidewalk, and the extensive use it has had. The images are still sharp. I do have a 17-40 f4L and I like it. Frankly I
    am tired of hoisting heavy glass and I am seriously considering an 18-200 for my more casual, walk-around use much as I like
    my 70-200 and 100-400. My experience tells me to stay away from other than Canon lenses. I frankly admit to prejudice that
    may not be valid with current Sigma lenses but I don't want to pay more money to experiment. A guy lent me his Sigma 10-20
    and I admit I really enjoyed using it and thought it a good solid lens that made nice pictures. I really liked the build and quality of
    the Tokina lens I had, but then, the AF was slow to my standards. I just thought I would share my experience not my advice.
    That's up to you.
     
  18. Just to add to the deluge: consider the 17-85. It is a compromise lens, but decent. They're quite a popular choice, so you should be able to try one out a camera store.
     
  19. I think all your other choices offered you are compromises.

    Just accept the fact the 85 1.8 is for longer reach and deal with that somehow, othwerwise you ARE going to sacrifice glass quality. Nothing mentioned above is better than the 85 1.8 and the 17-40 you have (except maybe a 16-35 and the 85). I think you are fine and don't need to downgrade in order to have an ultra zoom -- they all have their imaging IQ problems.
     
  20. You're probably right Ken.
     
  21. Just a thought... is there any reason you need a DSLR? Might it be better to get a high quality point and shoot camera?
    Many of those do have the larger zoom ranges and they are also smaller and lighter. Some produce quite good image
    quality, too.

    Dan
     
  22. I love my Sigma 17-70, and it lives on my 40D unless I want the wide of the 10-20 or the speed of the 85/1.8. A bit of vibrance and clarity in ACR, a bit of capture sharpening and it's excellent results. I own no L lenses, so can't really compare.
     
  23. I don't really like the Canon 17-40/4L as a walk around lens on a crop factor camera. I have one and I use it for this purpose but not happily. It is both too slow and too short for a standard zoom.

    Compared to the Tamron and Sigma xx-55 lenses you would probably be happier with the EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS. It is slower at the long end and not that much longer but does have IS but is optically very good and it is cheap. Actually the 18-55 kit lens is actually sharper than the 17-40/4L at almost all focal lengths and apertures though it exhibits much more vignetting.

    The Sigma 17-70 is definitely better than the Canon 17-85 which I did not like at all (a pity since I really liked the 28-135).
     
  24. I am happy too with my 17-40, on a 5D. I only wish it was even a bit wider. Something like an EF 15-35/4L, as good as the current 17-40 and in the same price range, would be nice.
     
  25. pair it with the 24-70 l or 24-105 l
     
  26. I am sure you will NO PROBLEM getting rid of your 17-40 F4L. This is one lens I would NEVER EVER get rid of. I absolutely LOVE that lens. It is the standard for any other lens I purchase. I am selling my Tamron 28-75 Di F2.8 and my Sigma 70-200 DX F2.8 and replacing them with Canon L-series Lenses. I like the Canon 24-70 because I want F2.8 for faster focusing on Canon 5D Mark II. When I need faster I shoot with Canon 85 1.2 L or 50 1.4 L. I will never go backwards on my glasss as it stays around much loner than camera bodies.
     
  27. I also own the 17-40 and at first I missed the extra reach I had when I was still shooting film with a 28-105. I guess I
    am getting used to it. After some time I am getting the feel of what this lens covers and knowing the limit before
    changing lenses. The only other lens I considered was the 17-85 but I decided against it when I read alot of not-so-
    great reviews. I also don't like the fact that it only works on crop sensor cameras. I carry the 28-105 with me which
    is pretty light and I have been happy with this combination. Not sure how the new canon 18-200 will be or the price.
    I have only ever owned Canon lenses and after reading alot of other forum lists here I got the feeling that any other
    wide zoom lens would be sacrificing quality of build or image. So I will stick with 17-40.
     

Share This Page