For Cropped Sensor - Used Canon 17-40L f/4 or Canon 10-18 IS STM + Canon 18-55 IS STM for the same price?

[gene f.]

<p>Dear Forum users,<br>

I was keep looking for answers, but still didn't quite get what I wanted.</p>

<p>My relative got Canon EOS Rebel SL1 body and has about $600 to burn on lenses. She needs 1 or 2 all around lenses for travel/pleasure photography.<br>

I looked at eBay and used Canon 17-40L F/4 can be found for close to $550. But this lens is better suited for a full-frame camera.I am sure one day she will upgrade to full frame, but until that day is it worth using much more expensive glass?<br>

After reading some reviews about new Canon 10-18 IS STM f/3.5-5.6 and Canon 18-55 IS STM f/3.5-5.6 I am getting second thoughts about getting more expensive lens mostly designed for full frame. </p>

<p>On another hand - perfectionist in me kind of cringes at the thought of a 5.6 aperture.<br>

There is also another choice - used Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens. On one hand - this one is only for cropped sensor, on another hand - could be better suited.<br>

Any comments, suggestions?</p>

<p>Thank you!<br>

Gene.</p>

[Ken Katz]

I have owned the 17-40mm for many years and I would not recommend getting such a relatively large and heavy lens for a light weight crop sensor camera. I would expect that either of the 2 available STM equipped standard lenses (18-55 or 18-135) would be a better fit and both have IS. The new 10-18 STM has received very good reviews but it does take a reasonable amount of experience to properly use such a wide lens, and does your relative currently have such skill. The 15-85mm would be high on my list given the extended range and purportedly good optical quality.

 

On FF, I find the extreme corners on the 17-40mm to be soft at 17mm (even at F11), and usually limit myself to 19 or 20mm if I need good corner to corner performance. Would probably get the new 16-35 f4 IS if I were to replace the 17-40. Use M43 most of the time now so that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>On another hand - perfectionist in me kind of cringes at the thought of a 5.6 aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the lens isn't for you, right? It's for your relative. Would she be hindered by a slow(er) aperture? f/4 is only 1 stop faster, so we're not talking worlds of difference anyway, but what are her requirements? Does she want/like ultra-wide angles like the 10-18 at all? A lot of people starting out do not (yet), and many get a 55-250 as second lens first. Given the choice for the SL1, possibly portability and weight are pretty important - the 10-18/18-55 are relatively small and light. 17-55 / 17-40, a whole lot less. There are a lot of variables, and it all boils down to the preferences and requirements of whoever uses the camera. So, I'd get those clear, and then go from there.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Full frame lenses work just as well, if not better, on crop sensor cameras than they do on their full frame counterparts. Given your options I would go for the 2 lens setup. When/if she decides to upgrade to full frame she will get 70%+ of the lenses value back if she sells them. </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I always say get what you need when you need it. The argument of weight alone for "all around" use seems decisive to me in favor of the newer, STM lenses. If she starts out with a heavy lens, she may end up using a phone camera instead.<br>

The 17-40 is a 'better' lens in some senses, but it's not really a good match for an SL1.</p>

[peter_c5]

I'd agree with Kenneth: the 15-85 would be the obvious choice here. If she does decide later to go full frame, then either

she keeps this lens with the camera as a backup, or sells the two together. One excellent, reasonably small and light lens

that goes pretty wide (24 mm equivalent) and long (135) will obviously be easier to live with than two!

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, definitely, the 15-85 is the ideal one-lens solution for this camera. The older 17-85 is available used even cheaper and is still very good. I shoot with both APS-C and 35mm and often have the 17-85 on the APS-C, and the equivalent 24-105 on the 35mm size sensor. More often, when I carry both at the same time, I do use a telephoto on the APS-C.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Weight shouldn't be an issue unless she's over 70. The 17-40 really isn't that heavy, I've used it for years on a cropped sensor body. Used it just today, and it would have been difficult with a slower lens...</p>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/cjm1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center><center><em>Contemporary Jewish Museum, San Francisco</em></center>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Well, I can tell you what will be an issue... every time she wants to zoom in to more than 40 or 55mm. I would suggest the 15-85 or the 18-135. Sure, you could pair that with a 10-18 if you wanted, but for 'general purpose' it'll likely spend 99% of it's life sitting in her camera bag.</p>

<p>As has been said, you aren't buying this for your use, you are buying it for someone else to use, who's interests, and skills you may not have taken into account. For example, the 17-40's IS really sucks. Whereas the IS system on every other lens that's been mentioned is actually quite good. If, for example, she's only been using her phone or a P&S for the last few years, she'll likely shoot with LV - which means the IS will be of critical importance.</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>the 17-40's IS really sucks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 17-40 doesn't have IS. Is there a newer one that does?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am sure one day she will upgrade to full frame</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? FF is heavier, bulkier, and more expensive. The lenses are also heavier and more expensive, particularly if you want the same reach, which requires a focal length 1.6 x as long. I shoot both, and there are clearly some situations in which FF is superior, but there are some uses for which crops are superior, and for many uses and many people, it doesn't make any difference which you use. Unless there is some reason she is going to feel pressure to switch formats soon (e.g., printing very large or lots of low-light photography), I would just buy for the body she has. She can always sell them later.</p>

<p>I agree with the others who suggest that the 17-40 is a little short for a general-purpose walk-around, even on a crop sensor camera. I also agree that more information about what she would do is important. </p>

[phule]

<p>[[Well, I can tell you what will be an issue... every time she wants to zoom in to more than 40 or 55mm]]<br>

<br>

+1</p>

[gene f.]

Thank you all for answering! What

about 15-85? Could you please

share what you know about this

lens?

 

Thank you!

[kerry_grim]

The new Canon EF-S f2.8 STM would be a great and compact fit for the SL-1 for only $149.00 (B&H prices). Combine that with the EF-S 18-55 IS STM f3.5-5.6 for $249.00 = total cost $398.00. Still money left over for a polarizing filter and camera bag or vest.

 

The Canon EF-S 18-85 is $$799 and reported to be an excellent and sharp combo if you can live with a 5.6 aperture.

 

To me, using a one-do-all lens is too many compromises. I would not want a 5.6 aperture except in a telephoto. Too much depth of field.

 

I do use a 17-40 which is pretty versatile, but not the best on a crop body. Best sharpness at f8-11. Often I will use a 24 because of its compact size and great sharpness; especially if traveling light. The latest 24mm is awesome, has IS and is $600.00. I just bought this lens as an upgrade to the old 24mm lens and it will be prefect as a wide angle when I get a full frame, yet an excellent "slightly wide angle lens which I use as a normal lens on a crop body.

[golem_bngolem]

<p>The various STM lenses may be the best bunch from which<br>

to select a general purpose lens. I have only one STM, the<br>

40:2.8, and I have no idea how it would be ranked by pixel<br>

peeping image-corners inspectors ... but what I do know is<br>

that is has the most decisive AF of ANY of my several EF<br>

lenses. All the rest will almost always require a couple of<br>

exra taps on the AF button to finally settle on a focus point,<br>

and that point can very if you AF to some other spot and<br>

then swing your view back to the intended spot. IOW all<br>

the other lenses are both indecisive and inaccurate most<br>

of the time. OTOH the STM 40 hits focus in one tap, and<br>

any extra taps will not cause it to refocus. Plus it will hit<br>

the same focus point over and over, exactly, even if you<br>

de-focus it and then AF it again. <br>

<br>

I would like IS for my low light work but currently my only<br>

IS lens is the 75-300:4.0-5.6. Being toadally unafeared of<br>

working at f:5.6 I'm GASsing for the STM 24-105 ! Would<br>

love to hear from anyone thaz using that lens. I've never<br>

seen a shot taken at 135mm that couldn't just as well be<br>

taken at 105mm, and I've never been a member of the<br>

Bokeh Cult, so 105:5.6 is cool by me if thaz the ticket to<br>

a midrange STM lens. <br>

<br>

Acoarst the STM 24-105 is a FF lens, but any of the EF-S<br>

STMs would be a great choice for a noob with an SL-1 :-)<br>

</p>

[christian_irgens]

<p>A third of a century ago I was in the right place at the right time with two small Leicas and five small lenses. Biked from the fire at the Long Island beach back to Queens (in NYC), developed the Tri-X in 86 degree soup and took the strips to the two New York tabloids. It seems nothing else happened in the whole wide world that weekend because my pictures ended up full page on page one on both papers Monday. It is, however, my one and only claim to photo-journalistic fame, and, no, I do not really expect lightning to strike twice. Even when I worked in financial services, though, I always had a camera in my briefcase. Since I went pro I almost never leave the house without a small outfit in my backpack (my preferred choice to carry anything.)<br>

<br>

Small, however, has recently gotten smaller. A Rebel T1i with battery grip has given way to an SL1 and an extra battery, the 550EX with CP-E3 battery pack has been replaced with a Nissin i40 and a hand-full of Eneloops (resulting in a one stop reduction in output.) I already had the 18-55 and the 55-250 (both of which are optically pretty darn impressive) and a 50/1.8 II, which makes a respectable portrait lens on any Rebel. For a "real" normal lens I use an old EF 28/1.8, which is heavier than I like these days, but still lighter than, if not as good as my Sigma 30/1.4. When Canon introduced the 10-18 I jumped on it. It is small and it seems optically more than acceptable. Apart from the 28, all these lenses have plastic mounts and are quite lightweight.</p>

<p>I am fully aware that this outfit does not produce quite the quality I get with my 5D III, my three 2.8 EF L zooms, and, to round it out, my 100-400 on the long end. But I have a small, comprehensive outfit that has the APS-C equivalent reach of FF 16mm to 400mm (and the 100-400 is even f/4.5-5.6 like the 55-250!) But I always have a camera, a flash, and a good assortment of lenses with me at a weight and size that my aging back will tolerate. There are very, very few situations I have not been able to tackle with this outfit.</p>

<p>You are not saying anything about your relative planning to go pro, so the advice about buying lenses for the camera she has now is excellent. Since you are comfortable with buying used glass for her, I would say get used 18-55, 55-250, and 50/1.8. The 10-18 is probably too new to be found used, so there you might have to go new, or delay the purchase. But this represents my advice to you; it will give your relative a heck of a lot of enjoyment for not a lot of green. And she probably won't pixel peep so much at the frame corners at extremes of the zoom range that she decides that she has too back off a millimeter or two to get results she can live with!</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Chris</p>