17-40mm F4 or 17-55mm IS USM f2.8

[prodrive69]

Hi guys, need u guys opinion between the 2 above mention lens.

I'm new to this DSLR world n own a 400D, n was thinking to upgrade my 17-85mm IS USM. Mostly here would prefer to own a L lens, but the 17-55 is also good lens..

So maybe u guys could give some advise or tips on which is still the best and good lens to own...

[calebk]

Depends on what you shoot. Do you shoot low light often? Do you have steady hands? Will you upgrade to a different format camera? (i.e. Full-frame or 1.3x crop)

Lots of discussion on this before actually. Might wanna do a search.

[engrmariano]

mohamed,

if your going to stick with your 400D, go get 17-55.

17-55 advantage: f/2.8 | IS | 15mm longer
17-40 advantage: L | full frame


buy my 17-55.

[J-Chan]

if I wasn't shooting film also, the 17-55 would be my choice..

[LancerCK]

Originally Posted by prodrive69 Hi guys, need u guys opinion between the 2 above mention lens. I'm new to this DSLR world n own a 400D, n was thinking to upgrade my 17-85mm IS USM. Mostly here would prefer to own a L lens, but the 17-55 is also good lens.. So maybe u guys could give some advise or tips on which is still the best and good lens to own...

I'm in the same dilemma as you when I was considering the 2 lens. I have tried both by renting, and liked both. However, I settle for the 17-40mm L in the end due to budget constrain. Also, I have a film camera, which I can use it for. For boths lens,
17-40mm
Pros
1. Full frame compatible;
2. weather resistance (not of concern since couple it with 400D);
3. Solid built;
4. Cheaper.
Cons
1. 15mm shorter;
2. F4.0;
3. No IS.

Pros
1. F2.8;
2. IS with 15mm longer;
Cons
1. Not as solid built and no weather resistance (again no concern);
2. More expensive (looking at about $500 more);
3. Flares very easily.

[doodah]

This question seems to get asked several times each month in this forum.

[oTaRu]

17-55mm has a solid built and it is comparable to L lens built.
Look for The Oracle, real name is Joe, to ask him for this lens, his previous sales is selling for $1350. His contact is 81281225.

[oTaRu]

Originally Posted by doodah This question seems to get asked several times each month in this forum.

that's right!

[calebk]

Originally Posted by oTaRu 17-55mm has a solid built and it is comparable to L lens built...

You must be kidding right? Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you?

The build quality of the 17-55 and 17-40 is MILES apart.

[oTaRu]

Originally Posted by calebk You must be kidding right? Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you? The build quality of the 17-55 and 17-40 is MILES apart.

I am no kidding and no one pay me to say that... I own 2 of this lens and I choose to keep my 17-55mm... although it is no weather seal but it has much better built compare to 17-85 and is comparable to L lens if u notice clearly... And I say is comparable means not 100% close but nearly there...

[calebk]

Originally Posted by oTaRu I am no kidding and no one pay me to say that... I own 2 of this lens and I choose to keep my 17-55mm... although it is no weather seal but it has much better built compare to 17-85 and is comparable to L lens if u notice clearly... And I say is comparable means not 100% close but nearly there...

Well if you want to feel good about your equipment, I shall not rock your boat the wrong way. I have used both before, and I can safely say the 17-40 will be able to sustain a beating no 17-55 can.

[oTaRu]

Originally Posted by calebk Well if you want to feel good about your equipment, I shall not rock your boat the wrong way. I have used both before, and I can safely say the 17-40 will be able to sustain a beating no 17-55 can.

anyway it's personnel preference, no point arguing... it's up to the TS to choose his lens...

[bernstein1234]

Originally Posted by calebk You must be kidding right? Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you? The build quality of the 17-55 and 17-40 is MILES apart.

Why the need to get so worked up? It's only a matter of difference in opinion.. Wars and arguments, right/wrong are always matters of difference in opinions... Unless it's clearly a fact, e.g. 1+1=2...

[calebk]

Originally Posted by bernstein1234 Why the need to get so worked up? It's only a matter of difference in opinion.. Wars and arguments, right/wrong are always matters of difference in opinions... Unless it's clearly a fact, e.g. 1+1=2...

You don't want to end up deluding the TS, do you?

I'm just trying to say that I have faith in the 17-40's ability to handle abuse that no 17-55 will withstand. If he wants to disagree, he is welcome to do so. At the end of the day, whichever lens the TS chooses, I have no say, but I will objectively state, as an owner of neither, but an extensive user of both lenses, that the 17-40 is still built tougher.

Is it not clearly a fact that a lens with no barrel extension when zooming is definitely less susceptible to damage than one with an extending lens barrel? The 24-70L for instance, is also susceptible to this problem, but to a lesser degree as its lens barrels is machined from alloys, while that of consumer zooms, including the 17-55, are made from plastics.

If you disagree, you are entitled to your opinion. I will of course also disagree with you. This is the way things work.

[bernstein1234]

Well.. if you choose to say that, I guess nobody's can pick a fault.. But, I'm sure there are better ways to say talk than to say: "Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you?"

And also, 17-55 and 17-40 got differences, let me tell you some.

Optical quality: 17-55 wins. Longer reach also. With IS.
Build quality: As you mentioned, 17-40, and can withstand abuse, although I dunno if got photographers will want to abuse their near $1k investment.

What i'm trying to say is, the TS haven stated his preference, and you went on about built quality, which MAY potentially make him/her think that 17-55's build is not good (based on your standards, only L lens can be brought to real world to withstand abuse).

So, who is the one trying to delude the TS? Did we find out his needs in the 1st place? TS mentioned:Pros
1. F2.8;
2. IS with 15mm longer;
Cons
1. Not as solid built and no weather resistance (again no concern);
2. More expensive (looking at about $500 more);
3. Flares very easily.

Obviously the TS understands that 17-55 is no child's plastic toy...

Young man, just relax, and take photos, as we photographers should, ya?

[doodah]

Originally Posted by calebk I can safely say the 17-40 will be able to sustain a beating no 17-55 can.

I am quite confident if you drop both lenses 5 feet above ground, they'll BOTH crack.

[wanzw]

Originally Posted by oTaRu I am no kidding and no one pay me to say that... I own 2 of this lens and I choose to keep my 17-55mm... although it is no weather seal but it has much better built compare to 17-85 and is comparable to L lens if u notice clearly... And I say is comparable means not 100% close but nearly there...

there is no way a 1755 has equal built quality as the 1740. the protruding barrel just makes it so vulnerable to knocks.

it is only comparable to an L lens when you talk about picture quality.

[tUx]

Build quality of the 17-55 is nowhere near 17-40 L. I've used both before and I'll take the 17-40 outfield any day.

However, f/2.8, the IS and slightly better IQ makes the 17-55 a better buy, but just got to be more careful with the lens lor.

[varf]

i had the 17-40, sold it away to pick up the 17-55. and i agree - the 17-40 feels better built and more resilient against small knocks, in no small part due to its non-protruding zoom design.

we're not talking about 5-foot drops - even if the lenses were to be rated to take abuse up to 10-foot drops, i wouldn't chance it. no, i mean knocks more along the lines of having it smack up against a piece of furniture, or possibly some other moving hazard, when i have my camera slung over my shoulder.

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by calebk You must be kidding right? Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you? The build quality of the 17-55 and 17-40 is MILES apart.

why need to ask some one "Who paid you to say that, and how much did he pay you?" when they say good things about their gear?

even if i say EFS 18-55 (kit) is way better than 24-70L. thats what i feel about it!

no one can buy how do i feel about my gears. period!