Have a 17-40 f/4L, thinking about a 17-55 2.8 or a Tamron 17-50 2.8

[jake_hilleary]

<p>So I've seen plenty of comparisons for the Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 18-50, so I have a fairly good idea of where they stand. Here's my problem...</p>

<p>I was looking for an upgrade to my 18-55 kit lens for my xsi, and ended up buying the 17-40 L (which I realize is a full frame lens), primarily due to budget reasons, but also because I was considering going to full frame in the future. However, I recently bought a 50D and I'm just thrilled with it. So, seeing as I might be sticking with crop frames for awhile, the 17-40 is looking far less useful. I definitely don't have money for an upgrade now, but I'm looking for opinions for the future.</p>

<p>The 17-40 has been excellent for outdoor shooting, and I've even managed to take some great indoor shots, but the extra stop would be very useful. I <em>do</em> prefer the build quality of the L series, but I'd be willing to part with it for a better lens.</p>

<p>Here are my options:</p>

<p>1) Save for a few months, sell my 17-40 (parting with the build quality and weather sealing, plus the option to go full frame) and buy a 17-55.</p>

<p>2) Save for a few months, buy the Tamron 17-50 (or Sigma 18-50?) and keep the 17-40 for outdoor use.</p>

<p>3) Save for a LONG time, buy the 17-55, and keep the 17-40 for outdoor use and full frame compadibility.</p>

<p>Any other creative options would also be acceptable.</p>

<p>Your opinions please...go!</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

<p>4) Keep the 17-40. Buy a new 24 2.8, 28 1.8, or 35 2.0 for inddor or low light use.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>As long as you don't mind the non-USM focusing the Tamron is optically just as good as either of the Canon lenses. I test drove the 17-40/4 and the 17-50/2.8 for a month before finally deciding on the 17-50/2.8. I did have to go through a couple copies of the 17-50 until I found one that didn't have focus issues though. </p>

[winniv]

<p>Hi Jake, I have the 17-55. I've used it a lot but for me it had two disadvantages:<br />1. 17-55 is still not a whole lot of reach. I missed being able to go longer. Especially for portraits, I didnt want to be in the face (literally) of my subjects.<br />2. It is a really big and heavy lens. To the point where it's too heavy for a walkaround lens. Also, you cannot use the onboard flash because it cannot go past the edge of the lens.<br />I liked that it has great superfast AF (regardless of the 2.8) and good IS.<br>

Still, when I bought my new 7D, I decided to try the new 15-85. Despite some issues with vignetting, it's just what I needed. the 85mm allows me to make nice portraits, the 15 allows me to go quite wide, the IS is fantastic (4 stops), the IQ is really very good, and it's a relatively small lens that fits perfectly on your 50D and allows you to use the onboard flash as a useful fill flash without issues. It is truly the perfect walkaround lens.<br>

You're gonna say that it's not so fast. For "real" portraits, I prefer the primes anyway, the 85 f1.8 comes to mind. F2.8 isnt enough to give you that same nice bokey anyway. And for the speed, the use of flash is much more useful: outside you don't need it, inside it's not enough, you'll still need the flash. The 17-55 is also troubled with vignetting, so they are on par there.<br>

Just my 2 cents, hopefully helpful information. Winni</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The 17-40mm isn't necessarily a full frame, it just is designed to fit on a full frame camera. Yes, it was designed to be super wide on a full frame camera, but 17mm is 17mm no matter which form it comes in. So the EF-S 17-55mm isn't going to be any different, except at the long end. If you NEED the stop, then the 17-55mm or Tamron are your only options. I don't think the IS is such a big deal on wide lenses. I have the 17-40mm instead of the 17-55mm and here's why. At the 17-40mm range I shoot 99% landscapes or inanimate objects, so the f/4 is not a factor. I think it is actually advantageous over the f/2.8 because when shooting landscapes you want the most DOF, but don't want to stop too far down and lose sharpness. The f/4 allows you to stop down further for more DOF while still staying within the "sweet spot" of the lens and maintaining maximum sharpness. I also like the build quality. Now for the low light, I have a 50mm f/1.8. I find that 17-40mm is too wide for most indoor shots and the 50mm works beautifully for this.</p>

[jake_hilleary]

<p>Wow I'm actually surprised by the responses so far, I'm glad I asked. Nathan, what body are you shooting with? I have the 50mm f/1.8 and it's been great, but I find it's not wide enough for indoor shooting (on my 50D). On a full frame it would be perfect. I saw a suggestion for a 24 2.8, 28 1.8, or 35 2.0. This was my original plan, what does everyone else think?</p>

[tdigi]

<p>If you want a 1 lens do most everything solution the 17-55 is the way to go but I would probably go with #4 as Kerry suggested ( actually I did just that ) and ad a prime. faster, smaller, lighter and cheaper and now you have 2 lenses that work on full frame or APS-C. .</p>

 

[jerry_cipriano2]

<p>Jake,<br>

I own both the 17-40L and the Tamron 17-50/2.8. More precisely, my wife has the Tamron, although I use it. I first owned the 17-40 and then bought 2 copies of the Canon kit IS lens and 1 copy each of the Tamron 17-50 and the Tokina 16-50/2.8. I had an understanding with the camera shop that I would keep only one, return the others within one week, with packaging in perfect condition for resale. I didn't compare the Canon 17-55/2.8 because it was too expensive. I shot perhaps 30 to 50 nearly identical shots with each camera and pixel peeped on the computer. In the end, I found all 3 to be excellent. The Tamron and the Tokina were comparable to my 17-40, with the exception of the extra speed afforded by the f2.8 and the comparative compactness of the Tokina and Tamron. Even the Canon kit lenses were pretty close behind. The f2.8 difference was significant enough on portraits as to be a deciding factor. I bought the Tamron 17-50. I frequently borrow it from my wife and leave my 17-40 at home. <br>

While primes may be even more impressive, as one respondent noted, my wife will not accept changing lenses that often. If I didn't plan on going full-frame shortly, I would sell the 17-40 and buy a 2.8 zoom. What brand is best for you may lie with emotional and subjective reasons. I suspect that you would be happy with either the Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55, but I don't see the value in keeping the 17-40 also and having two similar zooms.<br>

Jerry C.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>If you do a lot of outdoor shooting, the 17-40 is very flare resistant but the 17-55 can be prone to it. So for landscapes and architecture you may want to keep the 17-40. But I found the top end to be too short as a genuine walkaround lens so I got the 17-55 and I love it. Yes it is heavier and more bulky than the 17-40 (or the Tamron 17-50) but I have no complaints about that. I bought it before the 15-85 came out so that was not an option at the time.<br>

The Tamron is very nearly as good as the 17-55 and is a damned sight lighter and as has been said the IS is not as important at wide apertures. So by the time you sell the 17-40 in order to buy the 17-55, it will not be much more expensive to buy the 17-50 and keep the 17-40 for outdoor work - I am referring here to the 17-50 without image stabilisation (though a stabilised version recently came out).</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Go for option 1 but be forewarned that I am prejudice. I found my 17-55 so good that I sold my 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 as they became redundant.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[tony11]

<p>I second Yakim although I never had the 35/ 1.4 or the 50/ 1.4 the 17-55 works really well on my 20d.<br>

Cheers!<br>

TC</p>

[sean_walker]

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I like it a lot. If you really need (want) that extra stop, I'd upgrade to the Tamron, and then sell it when you can upgrade to the 17-55. The 17-50mm holds it's resale value very well and I think you'd probably like the extra stop and extra 10mm of reach.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Also consider a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L. Available for about the same price as a new 17-40/4 L.</p>

<p>I am a little confused by what you mean by a "better lens" and why the 17-40 is not as "useful" on full frame? </p>

<p>The one thing you might be missing on a crop body is true wideangle. You could also consider a third party wide for crop like the Sigma 12-24 which would become an ultrawide on a future full frame body. I would avoid EF-S lenses in case you do go full frame at some point.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I have the 40D. I find the 50mm to work fine for me in most indoor applications. If you need wider you can either get a 35mm or 28mm, although they aren't as cheap, or whip out the flash and use with the 17-XXmm.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I have the 17-55 2.8 IS. I prefer to shoot that on my 7D, rather than my 24-105 L on my full frame. It's that good. Final answer, 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Buffdr</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is very good, probably the best value in that focal range for crop models</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Everyone said wise words. I won't add to that.</p>

<p>I do however want to add a budget option to the prime list of choice #4 by Kerry. The 28/2.8 is very affordable and has a very nice image quality.</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>a couple primes seems like the best option.</p>

<p>ps -- 17-55 (with a hood) is no more prone to flare than the 17-40</p>

[df]

<p>I have 50D with 17-40, but need to go wider. Why not the new 15-85 that will allow me to go wider and longer.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I have both T17-50/2.8 and C17-55/2.8 IS. These lenses make f/2.8 primes within this range completely obsolete, for crop gear. They're fast, sharp wide open, <em>and</em> they zoom. How about that.</p>

<p>FWIW the 17 mm end on the Tamron is significantly wider than the Canon. The Canon is more like a 18-55. Both have good (but not excellent) build quality and work just fine for general outdoor use. I've used by Tamron on windy beaches, humid jungles, backcountry skiing in -30C, puking wet snow, etcetera etcetera. The lens is doing just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I absolutely love my 17-40 F4L and will never let it go. It was absolutely perfect on my 30D and is still great on my 5d Mark II. One of canon's best lenses ever made.</p>

[mr._b]

<p>I am a somewhat recent owner of the 17-40mm L and I have rented the 17-55mm a couple times. I do love the images I got from the EF-S lens, but there is just no way I was going to drop nearly a grand for it... and still have to buy a hood. It feels flimsy for the price and sucks in dust like nobody's business (I know it's not a serious problem).<br>

I do wish I could afford the 16-35mm L, but I am quite happy with my 17-40mm.</p>