Stuck between 3 choices. 17-35, 17-40, 17-55

[wanzw]

hi fellow clubsnappers. after using my gear extensively for the past few weeks, i realised i totally need a wide angle lens to capture group shots.

i have narrowed down to 3 choices, namely the 17-35, i managed to find one 2nd hand at a price ard 1k, the 17-40 and 17-55 are most likely to be brought from joe's MO.

i have seriously considering the 2.8 lenses as some events that i shoot do not allow the use of flash. but then between the 17-35 and 17-55, the L glass somewhat attracts me leh. build quality and stuff like that.

can any fellow canon users out there please give me some suggestions as regard which one should i get? and how do you all rank them in terms of sharpness and image quality?

many thanks!

[harrynkl]

why not a 17-50 2.8 tamron

[mcn]

tell me

Originally Posted by harrynkl why not a 17-50 2.8 tamron

[harrynkl]

check out this thread
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=213981

i bought 1 and i'm very happy with the pics i have during my trip to down under

u can go to the shop try out the lens

[JediForce4ever]

If built quality and stuff are more important to you, then its either the 17-40L or the 17-35L.
I have used the 17-40L and all I can say is that it is a fantastic lens.
But ask me to choose between an f4 and f2.8, I would go for the f2.8, so I guess 17-35 is pretty much it.Good focussing speed and f2.8.

[Ivan11]

I would advised you to go for a 17-40mm/f4L, as i've read some reviews from luminous landscapes comparing the 16-35, 17-35 and 17-40. The 17-40 somehow produces better contrast and sharpness. You can do a search at www.luminous-landscape.com for the comparison write up. As for the 17-55, it's EF-S mount meaning not all cams can use it.

[GilbertGoh]

you could also consider the Tokina 12-24 F4

[wanzw]

hi there. thanks for your replies. i will only be considering canon lenses. i won't be going full frame that soon and i still have my 24-70 so it is still ok.

right now still stuck between the choice of these 3. have been recking my brains on them and not concentrating on other things already. lol.

i haved used the 17-40 and 17-55 and some occasions. sometimes i will need the 2.8 and IS is a life saver after carrying your gear for one full day. i am not saying the 17-40 is a bad lens. but then given a chance to choose between only the 17-55 and 17-40, with FF aside. which lens you you all choose?

thanks for enlighting me.

[hobbit6003]

Originally Posted by wanzw hi there. thanks for your replies. i will only be considering canon lenses. i won't be going full frame that soon and i still have my 24-70 so it is still ok. right now still stuck between the choice of these 3. have been recking my brains on them and not concentrating on other things already. lol. i haved used the 17-40 and 17-55 and some occasions. sometimes i will need the 2.8 and IS is a life saver after carrying your gear for one full day. i am not saying the 17-40 is a bad lens. but then given a chance to choose between only the 17-55 and 17-40, with FF aside. which lens you you all choose? thanks for enlighting me.

EF or EFS mount aside, I took the plunge for the 17-55 for the following reasons:

1. f2.8
2. IS
3. Image quality is comparable, if not slightly better than the 17-40, especially in the department of sharpness.
4. Am not going FF.

Of course, the big thing going against it, besides the mount, is the cost. Thus, if cost is no issue, I'd say go for it.

Kenny

[Zplus]

Originally Posted by wanzw hi there. thanks for your replies. i will only be considering canon lenses. i won't be going full frame that soon and i still have my 24-70 so it is still ok. right now still stuck between the choice of these 3. have been recking my brains on them and not concentrating on other things already. lol. i haved used the 17-40 and 17-55 and some occasions. sometimes i will need the 2.8 and IS is a life saver after carrying your gear for one full day. i am not saying the 17-40 is a bad lens. but then given a chance to choose between only the 17-55 and 17-40, with FF aside. which lens you you all choose? thanks for enlighting me.

You can forget about the 17-35... all later lenses - 16-35, 17-40, 17-55 surpasses it in image quality. Its between the 17-40 and 17-55.

For me its 17-55, I found that the 17-40 wasn't sharp enough after using it for a while....
I am a pixel peeper....

[95bcwh]

To 17-55mm owners, do you guys face any dust issues? I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the picture taken from this lens. But I'm paranoid after reading on the web that dust gets into it pretty easily.

[Hacker]

Originally Posted by Zplus For me its 17-55, I found that the 17-40 wasn't sharp enough after using it for a while.... I am a pixel peeper....

If you go 17-40mm you have a sharper lens but f4. If you go 16-35mm, you have an f2.8 lens but not as sharp as the former. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

[shendeerzi]

Originally Posted by GilbertGoh you could also consider the Tokina 12-24 F4

I second Gilbert suggestion. If you want to take group photo which typically needs F5.6 and above, you should consider Tokina 12-24 F4 which is solid lens for wide angle.

[wanzw]

the 12-24 is a bit too wide. when you are shooting in "uncontrolled" environments, suddenly the 55mm is very beneficial when one wants to do some close ups.

so the battle is between the 17-55 and the 17-40.

price is not an issue because it is always the picture quality that matter.

i think i am leaning towards the 17-55 side already liao.

thanks everyone for your replies! really appreciate it

[user111]

go for 17-35/f2.8L

if not for the price i would have gotten it permanently already.

[Russ]

17mm on a 1.6x FOV crop factor is NOT exactly very wide angle.
Would you consider the EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5.
Very good lens ....

But if 22mm is not long enough for you, I would go for the 17-55....