Which lens(es) would you prefer?

[ukhov]

<p>Prime and something new on the market ,may be to match good size filter and borrow some money too</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p><em> The EF 17-40mm f/4L actually works as a 27mm-64mm lens on my cropped-sensor camera.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

True, and the 17-55 works as a 27-88 on a crop sensor. No gain at the wide end as Carl pointed out.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>zoom take from glass 7 to 10 mm ,better walk more to do best</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>Prime. 50mm 1.4. It gives You the QUALITY. It's not about the IS or tripod, it's about moving subjecs.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i love my 1.4 primes, but my preference would be something like a 35mm and an 85mm. of the two choices there, the primes over a slow zoom anyday.</p>

[authoritee]

<p><em>@ Nathan Gardner</em>: You and I have almost the exact same lens setup. The 17-40 f/4L you suggested, I already have it; my problem with that lens is the aperture. It's wide enough for my taste, but I find it uncomfortable for night-time photography and do not like the bokeh produced by it (although I know that wide lenses produce very little bokeh compared to tele-lenses). Besides this lens, I have the 50mm f/1.8, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and my newly added 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.</p>

<p><em>@ Steve Dunn</em>: I've heard that comment before and, even though it kinda makes sense, I just don't understand what the point is of having all L lenses fit on to Full Frame cameras; most of the models have APS-C sensors anyways! Again, I state, it's just too difficult for me to accept paying so much money for only one lens that does not fall into "L"-category build quality and weather-sealing standards...</p>

<p><em>@ John Hanlon</em>: The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an EF-S lens, which means it's made specially for APS-C sensors (1.6x cropped sensors) and delivers a true focal length. I've never tried it myself, but I understand it should be much wider than the EF 17-40 f/4L lens mounted on my 7D.</p>

<p><em>@ Maciek Stankiewicz</em>: Have you ever tried the 50 f/1.8? I own it, and I wonder how much of a difference there is between the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 model. Is it worth the change?</p>

<p><em>@ Ty Mickan</em>: During private photo-shoots or recordings, that is so very true. However, for travelling and walking around, a zoom might be very handy!</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p><em>I understand it should be much wider than the EF 17-40 f/4L lens mounted on my 7D.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Wrong. The focal length of a lens does not change when mounted on a crop sensor body.<br>

The 17-55 acts as a 27-88 on the 7D. <strong>17 x 1.6 = 27, 55 x 1.6 = 88.</strong></p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens offers exactly the same view as the 17-40 f/4 L lens on a 7D at the 17 mm end of the range. I have both lenses. The 17-40 f/4 L is a very fine lens for FF cameras, and is available at a great price. In my view, the 17-55 offers far more to crop sensor cameras like the 7D. It is faster, at f/2.8. It offers an additional 15 mm of tele range. It has optical quality at least as good as the 17-40 f/4, and it has fast, silent, and amazing IS to boot. Aside from being able to stretch your ISO choice a full stop farther in low light, the additional stop that the f/2.8 lens brings to the table also offers another step of shallow DOF to help offset the one stop DOF deficit that APS-C cameras have relative to FF cameras (with similar fields of view). Unless shallow DOF is a non issue for you, keep in mind that where an f/4 lens delivers fine results on a FF camera, an APS-C camera is always about a stop behind, and needs f/2.8 in order to match the f/4 DOF of a lens with the same field of view on a FF camera.</p>

<p>To your initial question, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is far and away my favorite high performance lens on any crop camera. It is without peer in my book. The other lenses are great, and I own most of them, but they are more limited in terms of general use, and will appear in your kit over time. I would not be without the 17-55 f/2.8 lens and the factory hood. It is a wonderful zoom. The battery here was to illustrate size in a different thread. No, it not included with the lens, nor does it fit inside the lens... :).<br>

<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4622751913_e5b0b0658e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /><br>

Keep in mind that the IS function on the 17-55 is really unbelievable in it's function. It is unlikely that fast action shots are your low light goal, and the 17-55 can deliver sharper hand held shots than the 50 f/1.4 can deliver at the same EV. I can post samples if you wish. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a fine low light performer, and it's AF speed is the best of the entire group in low light.</p>