Any crop shooters prefer EF 17-40L over EF-s 17-55

[matthijs]

<p>Dear Sirs,</p>

<p>At the moment I have this idee fixé that I should choose the EF 17-40L over the EF-s 17-55/2.8 for use on a 400D.<br>

In my personal files I have extended notes that I won't bore you with that prove I should.<br>

But maybe I'm just thick-headed and I should just listen to G. Dan Mitchell who in nearly all of his posts advices people to get over it and go with the 17-55/2.8 IS unless they have a really good reason not to.</p>

<p>The uses I'll put it to: daylight outside photo's in the city or in nature.</p>

<p>It's not needed for low-light or tight cropping.</p>

<p>So the question is: which one of you has used both and prefers the 17-40 over the 17-55? And if there is anyone who does prefer the 17-40, could you explain why?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your words, Matthijs.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Take a look at this thread.<br>

<a href="00SHtj">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00SHtj</a></p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>I've had both, sold the 17-40 and a 24-70 and purchased the 17-55 IS. 17-40 is a bit boring on a crop camera although is very well built and high performing. IMO opinion if you don't have the 17-55 Is you miss out most of the advantages of the crop body. FF does not have such a lens and if they did it would be big and heavy. </p>

[rainer_t]

<p>Come on ... the only disadvantage of the 17-55 is that you have to sell it should you ever go fullframe. (You aren't after the "ego-support" of the red ring, are you?)</p>

<p>The 17-55 is a unique lens as it gives you the standard range + f/2.8 + IS. No other lens (fullframe or not) has this.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Since my reasoning isn't included here and I was mentioned in the original post...</p>

<p>I shoot full frame, but I used to shoot a cropped sensor body. I used the 17-40 on the cropped sensor body and was successful in getting some fine photographs from it, but I found that it really "came into its own" for my photography when I used it on a full frame body. While I love the lens - for my particular uses - on a full frame body, if I were purchasing a cropped sensor body today I would certainly get the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS rather than the 17-40.</p>

<p>About the 17-40mm f/4 on cropped sensor bodies: It provides a focal length range from "normal wide" to "barely longer than normal." Center sharpness can be quite good. At f/4 corner softness is very noticeable - though the way you shoot affects the extent to which this might bother you. Corners improve as you stop down, but you are somewhat limited in how far you can stop down on the cropped sensor body due to the onset of some diffraction blur beyond about f/8. (If your goal in getting this lens is "sharpness," that sort of defeats that goal, doesn't it?) At f/8 the corners are a lot better but softness is still noticeable - in some photographs in may not be a critical issue, but in others you may not be so happy about this. YMMV.</p>

<p>About the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. From all reports the image quality from this lens is in the same category as that from the two ultra-wide (on FF) L zooms, the 17-40 and the 16-35 - in other words, quite good. Like the 16-35 it provides a f/2.8 maximum aperture and better performance than the 17-40 at the largest apertures. Unlike either of the two L lenses it incorporates image-stabilization, a feature which will be useful at times unless you always shoot at rather high shutter speeds or always use a tripod. Unlike the other two lenses, at the long end its 55mm focal length gives you the angle-of-view equivalent to a nearly 90mm lens on full-frame.</p>

<p>It is not an L lens - no red ring and no letter "L" embossed on the barrel. But if you lens choices purely on the basis of the L designation you are making a big mistake. I like to suggest thinking about it this way. If both the EF 17-40 and the EFS 17-55 were given the L designation (or if neither were so designated) and you had to make your choice purely on performance and functionality considerations (rather than relying on the label), what would your careful consideration lead you to purchase?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Before morning coffee, I wrote: "But <strong>if you lens choices</strong> purely on the basis of the L designation you are making a big mistake."</p>

<p>Now, after coffee, I can report that I meant to write: "But <strong>if you choose lenses</strong> purely on the basis of the L designation you are making a big mistake."</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I bought the 17-40 4L in 2003 with a 10D. A couple years later I bought a 17-55 IS. While both are excellent optics, the combination of F2.8, IS and a little extra reach made the 17-55 a permanent attachment on my 20D/40D/50D. I only use the 17-40 on my 5D when I need ultra wide.<br>

My 17-55 review:<br>

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm<br>

My 17-40 review:<br>

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Gentlemen, thanks for the responces.</p>

<p>Though I tried to pose my question in a way that the linked thread would not be repeated, it is mostly repeated.</p>

<p>A few short notes:<br>

1. Nope, sharpness is not the end all of photography to me. To my eyes the 17-40 seems to make nicer pictures. (Or it's owners are better at post processing.)<br>

2. I am totally in love with how my 70-200/4L IS handles. (I also used a variety of other lenses and none have that feel. Think 18-200's, 70-300 IS, 10-22 etcetera.)<br>

3. I will be buying a 5D later this year but I will keep my 400D. The 17-40 will certainly be of use then.<br>

4. I was looking for people who have used both on a crop camera and preferred the 17-40. Because if no one does maybe I'm on my way to buying a lens I'll regret even if I do intend to use it on a full frame as well.<br>

5. I also love to use my 50/1.4 so the gap between 40 and 70 isn't that big and the slowness of an F4 doesn't bother me.</p>

<p>In all, I still hope that my original question will be answered.</p>

<p>(Though some of the remarks I read seem to support that it's not an incredibly stupid idea to screw a 17-40 on a 400D. So maybe I just have to stop worrying.)</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Post scriptum...</p>

<p>I might be silly but how the equipment feels in my hands is a large part of my appreciation. Ever since I used the 70-200 I hardly use my Sigma 18-200 even though that's my only lens wider than 50mm...</p>

<p>The Digital Picture states the DLA (diffraction limited aperture) of the 400D at 9.3.<br>

(And with my non profesionnal use I could probably push that to f11...)</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

<p> </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>4. I was looking for people who have used both on a crop camera and preferred the 17-40. Because if no one does maybe I'm on my way to buying a lens I'll regret even if I do intend to use it on a full frame as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many of the above posters have owned and used both, myself included, but have preferred the 17-55. It's rare the other way around. I suspect a landscape shooter whom normally stops down to F8 or higher and uses a tripod may in fact prefer the 17-40 L. The extra stop and IS are superfluous and the weather sealing is welcome. For most other purposes the 17-55 trumps the 17-40. I saved my 17-40 for FF but should probably sell it as it's too wide on my 5D for my taste.<br>

<br /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect a landscape shooter whom normally stops down to F8 or higher and uses a tripod may in fact prefer the 17-40 L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is what I used the 17-40 for on crop, and I would <em>not</em> prefer it for this use. Puppy Face is right that the IS and smaller stops make the advantages of the 17-55 over the 17-40 for cropped sensor use somewhat less, but the 17-55 still appears to have <em>equal or better image quality than the 17-40 on crop,</em> especially in the corners and even at f/8.</p>

<p>There are only two reasons that I would select the 17-40 over the 17-55 for use on a crop sensor body:</p>

<ol>

<li>I was short on funds and could afford the 17-40 but not the 17-55.</li>

<li>I had a very solid plan to acquire a full frame body in the very near term or share the lens between a current FF and the cropped body.</li>

</ol>

<p>Notice that "it is an 'L'" is not among those reasons. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p>Notice that "it is an 'L'" is not among those reasons. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm... it wasn't among mine either.</p>

<p>You guys have me doubting again. Not my preferred state of mind. Still, the 17-40 keeps alluring. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But maybe I'm just thick-headed...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the experiences!</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

<p> </p>

[mbkissel]

<blockquote>

<p>Though I tried to pose my question in a way that the linked thread would not be repeated, it is mostly repeated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you did a fine job posing your question. It was my inability to correctly read that. I'm going to share G. Dan's excuse that it was early, and I was still sipping that first cup of coffee.</p>

[evphotography]

<p>Sounds like you are already leaning toward the 17-40L and just want people to confirm your decision to buy that lens over the other, you don't need others to confirm that decision. Both of those lenses are excellent and either one would be great choice. If you are planning on getting a FF camera fairly soon then 17-40L is by far the better choice. To many people get obsessed with pixel peeping and comparing lenses and in real world shooting and when viewing images at print size you won't see any difference probably between either lens. There is an article written by Ken Rockwell about lens sharpness I think you need to read, let me say first I'm not a big fan of his articles and take with a grain of salt just about anything he writes, but this one I will have to admit he is right on with, check it out.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm</a></p>

[matthijs]

<p>Mark: thou art forgiven. (I'm sure some of my replies to other people's posts are off the mark -no pun intended when I wrote that, and now I can't get myself to delete it- as well.)</p>

<p>Eric: thanks! I'm a great fan of Ken, I always bring my pack of salt when I visit his site and more often than not I leave with a grin. Still, in between the rants and raves there are wise words hidden.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[evphotography]

<p>I was kind of hoping my post my help you decide, because I really felt you wanted the 17-40L, but wanted to make sure it was best lens to get. Believe me it is a fine lens, I shoot it with my 5DII and even with FF and 21MP still does and excellent job, especially on wide end.</p>

[richie_boone]

<p>If you plan on shooting for awhile, get the 17-40L. You may end up with a full frame camera some day. Keep in mind, the EF-S lens will only work on the cropped body sensors.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>(Now I have something to save for. Actually two things, the 5D's aren't for free just yet...)</p>