Canon 17-55mm or 17-40 L

[tylerfj24]

<p>I noticed that I could probably get the 17-40 L cheaper than the 17-55 yesterday? Is there any reason for this. I mean most people would just buy the L lens because its an L, but besides the extra 15mm is there any reason not to buy the 17-40L over the 17-55mm. I use the 50D with a 1.6 factor.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I think that you will be served better over the long run with the L glass. The 17-40 is a great lens. Most people upgrade cameras over time and I believe that full frame cameras will be standard in a few years. The 17-55 will be obsolete at that time and you may decide to upgrade before that.</p>

[Brad_]

Whether a lens is "L" or not is of little consequence compared to whether the aperture meets your needs. And lenses will

not become obsolete.

[trevor_martin]

<p>I recently went through the same debate, and ended up with the 17-55mm lens as it fit my needs better than the 17-40. The extra 15mm was a factor as I intended to make this my new walk-around lens, replacing my 17-85mm. It made it a more versatile lens which would require less lens changing. The larger aperture was also a great advantage, the 17-40 is undoubtedly a great lens but it is slower. As for the lens becoming obsolete, I seriously doubt that the 1.6 cameras will soon disappear off the market, and even if they did, I'm not intending on upgrading from 40d to a new camera for a long time, and so I see no sense in not purchasing this lens because of a vague chance that I might want to upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future. So the 17-55 met MY needs better, at this point in time. Your needs might be completely different, you might have a need for the better build construction of the L lens or you might be considering the purchase of a full-framer in the near future. You just need to weight the pros and cons of each lens, at the very least you know that they are both great lenses.</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>With the EF-S 17-55mm lens, you get the awesome combination of constant f/2.8 aperture <strong>and </strong> IS. That's probably the reason why it is more expensive than the 17-40mm L lens. Unless you are currently using a full-frame camera, I would recommend that you get the 17-55mm if you can afford it. Although many non-professionals talk about their aspirations to move up to a FF DSLR (if wishes were horses. . . .), many will not do it (or will not do it any time in the near future). I think you should go with what you know. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Yes, I am probably a bit jaded by having recently sold some great equipment that is no longer in fashion, film gear, for what seemed like pennies on the dollar. That and the $20,000 piece of electronic equipment that we had to throw away because there was not support for it anymore!</p>

<p>I am sure you will get great use from the 17-55 with the IS. The consideration for me would be whether I longed to be shooting FF or was completely happy with my current equipment. And I do think that FF will take over all but the lowest end of the dslr market within a few years. (and except for marketing reasons could be standard now, at least with Canon)</p>

[anov]

<p>There's nothing like the 17-55mm IS full frame or otherwise, it is 2.8, has IS, has excellent image quality, and it's small and light (well, compared to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 which I traded for it).<br>

My most used lenses now are this 17-55mm, 10-22mm, and the 55-250mm, all EF-S lenses. That 10-22 cures the desire for FF for now and a foreseeable future and as far as flexibility I can always sell those if that time comes. I need a system that is usable for my need now. Still have a bunch of EF primes and the 70-200mm for my EOS 3 just in case.<br>

I have used the 17-40mm as my general purpose lens when I got into DSLR a couple years ago and it can be usable but the slow f/4 and limited range on a crop body means I have to compromise a lot more.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>I have the 17-40L and use it on a 30D and 40D. I use this lens mostly in situations where the extra stop of the 17-55 would be of little advantage, outdoors durring the day of indoors with flash.<br>

For truly low light situations, I'll use my 50 1.8.<br>

For me the build quality, IQ, full frame support and price are deciding factors for the 17-40L. I am really pleased with it.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I shoot and love the 17-40... for certain subjects... on full frame.</p>

<p>I shot it on a cropped sensor body at one point. As a general purpose lens in that role is was OK. But the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS has it all over the 17-40 as a cropped sensor body lens: equal or better IQ, f/2.8, larger focal length range, image stabilization.</p>

<p>If I were getting a cropped sensor body and looking for a lens to fill this sort of need, there is no question in my mind that it would not be the 17-40, it would not be the 16-35, it would be the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The "switching to full frame" notion works if you a) intend to (not wonder if you might) switch to full frame very soon and b) are willing to sacrifice aspects of image quality in the interim while you use the 17-40 on the cropped body. On the other hand, if you get the better lens (the EFS lens in this case) you can either sell it when and if you move to full frame or, more likely, keep the cropped sensor body and lens as a backup/second camera.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[tylerfj24]

<p>I just moved up to a dslr not to long ago and I know that I have never shot with a ff body, so Im not really following you all on how the f4 on a crop body would effect anything? I mean why would a f/4 on a ff be different than on a crop sensor. You still get what you shoot, I mean on a crop sensor just back up a bit right?<br>

Anyway<br>

thanks for all the info, I will be researching for more.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Tyler:</p>

<p>I would advise you not buy either of these until you understand the differences between them and understand what you need.</p>

<p>You need to know the advantages of F2.8 vs F4 before you can make a reasonable choice. Also, you need to know if IS is going to help with the particular type of shooting you'll be doing. </p>

<p>The 17-40 is a very limiting focal range and that 15mm is in a critical range. It's meant to be a super wide on a full frame camera, whereas the 17-55 is meant to be a general purpose walk around lens on a crop body. They are completely different lenses. The 17-40 is typically used for landscape work with FF on a tripod where large apertures are not needed.</p>

<p>Also, if you don't understand the "crop factor" you need to google that and get clear on what it means. Both of these lenses are overkill for you if you don't know these issues.</p>

<p>The statement that crop lenses will be obsolete is completely baseless. There is no evidence of this. On the contrary, there are many high functioning DSLR's with even smaller chips like the 4 thirds designs. Crop bodies are here to stay. While the cost of making FF may come down, it stands to reason that it will always be cheaper to make a smaller sensor, and there will always be people wanting the cheaper camera body. So, don't worry about that. Also, quality lenses hold their value well, not like bodies. The 17-55 has L glass and L quality of images and performance. I just doesn't have the rubber seals and metal casing. That's a marketing thing and should have no bearing on your decision.</p>

<p>For now I think you'd be best served with a good 3rd pary lens like Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 or Tamron 17-55 2.8. Both of which can be had for much less than the 17-40.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>There have been many great contributions on this question. All I can say is that I had a similar conflict. The reasons to go for the 17-55 boiled down to:<br>

1) IQ<br>

2) IS<br>

3) f2.8<br>

4) the extra 15 mm</p>

<p>The only reasons I could think of to put the 17-40 on my 40D were:<br>

1) the red ring<br>

2) dust/weather proofing<br>

3) build</p>

<p>In the end, I know that a red ring isn't required to make a great photo. I have no complaints about the build of the 17-55. It's plastic, but not cheaply made. I'm not frequently using it environments where the seals are really important.<br>

I've never regretted my decision. The 17-55 is such a great lens that it, alone, justifies keeping a crop sensor camera. You can't go wrong with it.</p>

[markonestudios]

It really will depend on what you're shooting. If low light work, then the 17-55 would be a good choice. If you're doing landscapes (i.e stopped-down shooting), the 17-40L is unlikely to disappoint. I have one and I love it. I use it on my crop sensor dSLR as well as my film EOS camera, and I love it. There is much to be said, however, for the EF-S 17-55, especially if you don't plan to go full frame in a hurry. Also consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which is a lot cheaper than the 17-55 and, from what I've read, is no slouch in the IQ department. You do lose IS though. Decisions, decisions... :)

[robin_sibson1]

<p>What GDM said. The first 'standard' zoom I used on my first DSLR, a 20D, was the 17~40, bought for (film, hence FF) use as a UWA zoom on my -1v. It worked well optically on a 1.6-factor body, but the limitation of the zoom range was very apparent, and before long I moved to the 10~22 + 24~105 combination, fine if you are happy with the changeover point. This was all before the EF-S 17~55/2.8 was released. My 17~40 then sat in the cupboard for a bit, but is now back in its design role as a FF UWA on a 5D and now a 5DII. If I were buying now for 1.6-factor use I would unhesitatingly buy the 17~55 rather than the 17~40 (or indeed than the 16~35/2.8 II).</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>Someone wrote "There's nothing like the 17-55mm IS full frame or otherwise, it is 2.8, has IS, has excellent image quality". Well, There is 24-105L IS for full frame. With FF you will have two stops or so better ISO noise that will make up for the difference in speed. For DOF issues, 4,0 in FF still blurs more than 2,8 in APS. There are little to rave about for 17-55 in this comparison.</p>

<p>17-55 IS is still a exraordinary lens for APS format.</p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>on a crop sensor the 17-40 is extremely boring, slow aperture, dull focal lengths, no IS.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I had both, sold the 17-40 for the 17-55. I feel exactly the same as Ben Quinn.</p>