Canon New 17-55/F2.8 IS USM VS 17-40/F4 L?

[chunky228]

Has anyone tried both lens? Some reviews stated that the new EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS USM can be comparable to L Lens.

Care to share some views on this. (thinking of getting a upgraded len for my D350, but not share what to buy). Thanks a lot.

[_espn_]

Originally Posted by chunky228 Has anyone tried both lens? Some reviews stated that the new EF-S 17-55/F2.8 IS USM can be comparable to L Lens. Care to share some views on this. (thinking of getting a upgraded len for my D350, but not share what to buy). Thanks a lot.

What's a D350 ? New line of Durians?

The 17-40L is a L glass should be much better than the 17-55 which isn't.

Get the 17-40L.

[sonix]

I think he mean 350D la..

Anyway sorry can't help you with your question since I'm only use 17-40L.

[thw]

Originally Posted by _espn_ The 17-40L is a L glass should be much better than the 17-55 which isn't.

Look at Photozone results: the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens soundly TRASHES the 17-40 f/4L lens. The EFS lens also has superb color, contrast and CA. The only major weakness of the EFS lens is in flaring. Other minor weaknesses are in build quality and vignetting. But its range, speed (as in bigger aperture), IS and longer range practically whip the 17-40 f/4L.

What is this obsession that Singapore Canon shooters have with the 17-40 f/4L lens??? Most are not even using full frame cameras (where the 17-40 f/4L lens is truly built for).

Guess it's the L-fever or the fact they can show other people that red label.

[jasonpgc]

Think you can buy whatever that suits your need and price.

In this range, the difference in lens quality is not easily visible.

What we can compare is the built of the lens body and feature.

If you need the extra stop, IS and range than it seems the17-55 is a good consideration.

If you dun need all that, I think 17-40 will have a slightly better resale value since it is still a very decent lens that fits all Eos systems.

To me vignetting is a serious design flaw, I'll avoid buying whenever possible.

[chunky228]

My bet. I'm dreaming about durians . Should be 350D. Thanks, Sonix.

Agree with THW on the 17-40L (recommendation from a friend). Moreover, all reviews lean towards 17-40L. I figure it was before the release of the new lens.

I guess is about expandability. Should FF DLSR become more affordable, the upgrade will be less painful. Nevertheless, the feature of the EFS is overwhelmingly attractive, bigger aparture len, IS and longer stops.

Thanks all for the good advises. Surely make my next purchase easier.

Cheers.

[jdredd]

17-55 if im not mistake has L ULD lenses. but not flourite coated.
but in terms of picture quality, from all ive seen and read, it scores higher than the 17-40.

but even if it was on par, it still bring 2.8, IS and a longer reach to the table..

[kenrai]

To be precise, it has 2 UD elements while some L lens like the 24-105 has only 1. I have been using it lately and found the images to be sharper than the 17-40. It is definitely an excellent general purpose lens for 1.6 crop cameras. Of course, the popular argument against this lens is its efs mount. Well, to me, it is just a matter of asking yourself whether you want good images now or later. Also, I remembered pointing out before that similar configuration for the L-series will cost you a much bigger bomb (just do an approximate cost estimation for the 16-35 + 24-70[50%] + IS). Besides, even when FF is available at very affordable prices (but no way it is going to be anytime soon), the 1.6 crop still have the advantage in terms of distance (so you don’t have to spend more money for longer focal length lenses). Therefore, there is a possibility that it may be retained.

Having owned the 17-40, 24-105 and now the 17-55, IMPO I would go for the 17-55. Why? Besides the 17-55 image quality, I find that the 17-40 has a lot of distortion at the edges on a FF and also it is already sufficiently wide at 24mm (try it for yourself). Furthermore, you can consider keeping the 1.6 crop as a backup camera for shooting at longer focal lengths while the FF for something nearer (e.g. portraiture and landscape) when the time comes.

Cheers!

[F5user]

or get the Ni*on 17-35 af-s 2.8 and a Fmount-eos adapter.

but seriously, i'm using the 17-55 on my 20d, and i LOVE it... hehe...

[tanwn]

yes very true, i own the 17-55 and it is very very sharp even wide open. In fact according to canon and review at photozone.de and the-digital-picture, it is currently the highest resolution lens made by canon surpassing current L but not on built and weatherproofing. Don't mistake me, I love L and do own a few, but this time have to give the thumbs up for 17-55. Imagine it is a marriage of 16-35 2.8 (16 to 17 negligible) + 24-70 (55 to 70 a bit sacrifice but not too significant, if u own 70-200 which everyone should u already have 70, leaving 55 to 69) but 24-70 does not have IS (at 70 x 1.6 = 110mm u need IS). In fact even though the price may seem high for a non L but if u think over it carefully, it is a real bargain. Eg, 16-35 $2100 + reach 35 to 55 add $600 + IS add $ 900 total $3600, of course minus L built and magnesium body $1.8K is a good bargain.

[kenrai]

Originally Posted by tanwn yes very true, i own the 17-55 and it is very very sharp even wide open. In fact according to canon and review at photozone.de and the-digital-picture, it is currently the highest resolution lens made by canon surpassing current L but not on built and weatherproofing. Don't mistake me, I love L and do own a few, but this time have to give the thumbs up for 17-55. Imagine it is a marriage of 16-35 2.8 (16 to 17 negligible) + 24-70 (55 to 70 a bit sacrifice but not too significant, if u own 70-200 which everyone should u already have 70, leaving 55 to 69) but 24-70 does not have IS (at 70 x 1.6 = 110mm u need IS). In fact even though the price may seem high for a non L but if u think over it carefully, it is a real bargain. Eg, 16-35 $2100 + reach 35 to 55 add $600 + IS add $ 900 total $3600, of course minus L built and magnesium body $1.8K is a good bargain.

a bit more after the optional lens hood

[thw]

Originally Posted by jasonpgc To me vignetting is a serious design flaw, I'll avoid buying whenever possible.

Vignetting is an overblown problem. You WON'T notice it for more than 80% of your shots unless you're always pointing your camera towards a blue sky or spending too much of your time taking test shots (instead of real world shots).

If you are so fearful of vignetting, it means (i) you should NEVER upgrade to FF (ii) you will always have to mount EF lenses on EFS cameras (i.e., carry unnecessary weight) (iii) you should move to Olympus 4/3 system if you have not done that already. BTW, you should also stop buying and selling EFS lenses.

[shinken]

Originally Posted by thw Look at Photozone results: the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens soundly TRASHES the 17-40 f/4L lens. The EFS lens also has superb color, contrast and CA. The only major weakness of the EFS lens is in flaring. Other minor weaknesses are in build quality and vignetting. But its range, speed (as in bigger aperture), IS and longer range practically whip the 17-40 f/4L. What is this obsession that Singapore Canon shooters have with the 17-40 f/4L lens??? Most are not even using full frame cameras (where the 17-40 f/4L lens is truly built for). Guess it's the L-fever or the fact they can show other people that red label.

as well as 1.3x crop.

It's quite surprising vignetting is a weakness with an EFS lens when the image circle is so small. How can the light distribution be so poor? The 24-105 suffers from a similar problem. Same batch of engineers?

[jasonpgc]

Originally Posted by thw Vignetting is an overblown problem. You WON'T notice it for more than 80% of your shots unless you're always pointing your camera towards a blue sky or spending too much of your time taking test shots (instead of real world shots).

I don't take test shots. Yes I take blue skys.
Whether a lens is sharp or not is not important to me.
I use f8 above and tripod for almost all my shots.
You can't really tell any difference on a print.
99% of my shots are landscape in daylight or early evening.
1% of the time using for portrait or maybe zoom in to crop out part of the scene.
When you buy a 17mm lens, you want to use it at 17mm.
If you find all you pictures vignetting at 17mm, and have to always zoom in to use 20mm, then whats the point of having it? There are lens in the market that is built for 1.6x crop but does not vignets at the wide end, like sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Do you think it is worth paying thousands of dollars and still get a lens that vignetts? For me its no

Originally Posted by thw If you are so fearful of vignetting, it means (i) you should NEVER upgrade to FF (ii) you will always have to mount EF lenses on EFS cameras (i.e., carry unnecessary weight) (iii) you should move to Olympus 4/3 system if you have not done that already. BTW, you should also stop buying and selling EFS lenses.

Different people have different priorties when they choose things. My shoots are mainly landscape and vignetting landscape pictures are certainly not my preference. Yours may be portrait or street shots, speed and stability is more important. I've three lens with 1.6x that do not vignetts. You should find out more before jumping into conclusions.

[kenrai]

Originally Posted by jasonpgc I don't take test shots. Yes I take blue skys. Whether a lens is sharp or not is not important to me. I use f8 above and tripod for almost all my shots. You can't really tell any difference on a print. 99% of my shots are landscape in daylight or early evening. 1% of the time using for portrait or maybe zoom in to crop out part of the scene. When you buy a 17mm lens, you want to use it at 17mm. If you find all you pictures vignetting at 17mm, and have to always zoom in to use 20mm, then whats the point of having it? There are lens in the market that is built for 1.6x crop but does not vignets at the wide end, like sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Do you think it is worth paying thousands of dollars and still get a lens that vignetts? For me its no Different people have different priorties when they choose things. My shoots are mainly landscape and vignetting landscape pictures are certainly not my preference. Yours may be portrait or street shots, speed and stability is more important. I've three lens with 1.6x that do not vignetts. You should find out more before jumping into conclusions.

The subsequent clarification on your unique requirements (i.e. sharpness is not important to you, always shoot at f8 or above with a tripod on landscape subjects under good lighting conditions and the need for smaller prints only) had made the earlier statements more comprehensible for me. Cheers!

[thw]

Originally Posted by kenrai The subsequent clarification on your unique requirements (i.e. sharpness is not important to you, always shoot at f8 or above with a tripod on landscape subjects under good lighting conditions and the need for smaller prints only) had made the earlier statements more comprehensible for me. Cheers!

Ya, it's pretty funny to me too.

[thw]

Originally Posted by jasonpgc I don't take test shots. Yes I take blue skys. Whether a lens is sharp or not is not important to me. I use f8 above and tripod for almost all my shots. You can't really tell any difference on a print. 99% of my shots are landscape in daylight or early evening. 1% of the time using for portrait or maybe zoom in to crop out part of the scene. When you buy a 17mm lens, you want to use it at 17mm. If you find all you pictures vignetting at 17mm, and have to always zoom in to use 20mm, then whats the point of having it? There are lens in the market that is built for 1.6x crop but does not vignets at the wide end, like sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Do you think it is worth paying thousands of dollars and still get a lens that vignetts? For me its no

OK. So sharpness is of no relavance to you.

You always shoot at F8 and smaller apertures. Every 'vignetting' lens has little vignetting at f/8 and smaller:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
and so on.

BTW, what is point of purchasing an f/4 or f/2.8 lens and have to use it at f/8 all the time????

Oh, the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 vignettes too, just less significantly:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

[Yoke]

I used to thave both the 17-40L and now have the 17-55 and tested both shortly.

The 17-55 is made up of L components, but is not labelled bcos it is EFS and is not targeted at canon's professional followings. But it is the sharper than than my 17-40 at most focal lengsths and f-stops. I find it stange initially, but then it is MEANT to be made this way i guess. I don't think Canon is stupid enuf to sell the EF-S 17-55mm at $1.9K to be lousier than the $1.2K 17-40L.

The 17-55 is very sharp. Period. It is as sharp at 2.8 as 17-40mm at f4. And it has a 3rd gen IS, making it 2-3 stops advantage handholdability (like a f1.4-1.8, without action scenes). It has got me more quality pictures in lowlight than my 17-40.

Wait for FF price to drop buy the 17-40 to keep? Buy the 17-55 and get great photos NOW, not in 2-3 time when "I can afford FF" or when "1Ds Mk II becomes $5K' etc. Buy it then sell next time to those people still using crop cams eg 450D or 40D. I still see people selling "old"
17-85 around , dont worry too much about re-sale value. Think more of the pictures you can make with the lens NOW.


Heres a sample of comparision btw 17-40 and 17-55

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

[kenrai]

Originally Posted by thw OK. So sharpness is of no relavance to you. You always shoot at F8 and smaller apertures. Every 'vignetting' lens has little vignetting at f/8 and smaller: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm and so on. BTW, what is point of purchasing an f/4 or f/2.8 lens and have to use it at f/8 all the time???? Oh, the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 vignettes too, just less significantly: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

To be fare, everyone has their own unique requirements. Perhaps, there is an aspiration here to shoot only at small apertures like Group F/64. The group shoots only at f/64 on large format cameras to achieve pure sharpness though.

[Yoke]

Whenever the light falls, the 17-40 sleeps in my bag. Now the 17-55 stays on most of the time, regardless of lighting unless the darkest situation when i will whip out my 30mm f1.4.
I have doubts about it EFS status, but when i saw the IQ i was sold, $$$ well spent.

The only gripe i have for the 17-55 is its build. It is made of polycarbondate and feels more "fragile" after using the 17-40L. But don't worry, it wouldn't crack in your hands or fracture under heavy use.... none of my canon lens have, and I dont use my lens as baseball bats.

Another thing is, goodness me, why can't Canon just GIVE a lens hood for this $1.9K lens? What's on their mind? For 1.9K they cant even give their loyal customer a cheap plastic hood? This is embarassing marketing.

anyway, if $$$ is not a prob, the 17-55 is a good lens giving you good quality pictures