haiz.....i think i will wait and see, hope the EFS 17-55 IS price drop again lol. seldom see people sell this efs 17-55 IS. Now can see many selling his 16-35 L, 16-35 MK2 is calling them lol
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS vs EF 17-40 F/4L
- Thread starter raymond350
- Start date
- Status
haiz.....i think i will wait and see, hope the EFS 17-55 IS price drop again lol. seldom see people sell this efs 17-55 IS. Now can see many selling his 16-35 L, 16-35 MK2 is calling them lol
I do agree on the dust thing.
Another thing to try is flare. 17-55 is notoriously famous according to reviews.
Then again I ask myself do I take pics under such conditions. The other question I asked was do I need the 2.8 speed.
After reading much and considering my applications, I'm still 60/40 towards the 24-105L.
Cheers
Another thing to try is flare. 17-55 is notoriously famous according to reviews.
Then again I ask myself do I take pics under such conditions. The other question I asked was do I need the 2.8 speed.
After reading much and considering my applications, I'm still 60/40 towards the 24-105L.
Cheers
24-105 is good :thumbsup: only thing is it is not wide enough... if you already have a wider lens.. it is a no-brainer.. push yourself up 70/30 :sweatsm: best walkaround lens.. it will be on my camera 80% of the time
The current old 16-35 is disappointing for its corner sharpness. The 17-40 is way sharper than the 16-35 for corner sharpness comparing at the same aperture ie f4-5.6. I have used both and know as such after taking so many test shots. The 17-40L is really a super value lens, really given its legendary sharpness, at such a low price!
Ask around those who have the 16-35 and they tell me the same thing too. Check out FM reviews and the Luminous Landscape comparision btw the 2 lens,u will understand. I dun understand why Canon charge double for thr 16-35 for one stop bigger aperture but poorer corner sharpness at same aperture.
Oh it cost 4x the price of Tamron 17-55 f2.8
But Canon at least offer the 17-40 to the mass who needs the wide angle properties at a reasonable price, while the 16-35 s targeted at professional market who need the low light capability.
Just like the 50mm 1.8 with very good sharpness at such a low price whereby the 50 1.4 is slightly sharper but 3x the price. It serves a different market.
There is a reason why the 16-35 MK II is coming out... ie the 16-35 needs some work to update and upgrade its IQ, after so many people have complained about the 17-40 being sharper at the corners. Both 17-40 and 16-35 were launched close to each other and yet 17-40 is still going strong.
Gosh, if the MKII is going to cost more than the MKI, i will sit down and think long and hard how to justify of the lens that will cost more than double than the equally good F4 version.
For a crop sensor camera, the 17-55 F2.8 IS will significantly get you more keepers than a 17-40 F4 can, due to its (1) Larger aperture for DOF and lowlight capability; (2) 3rd generation 3-stops IS.
Its almost like the ef-s lens got a 4 stops advantage over the 17-40!!
If I have 1.6 crop i will get the 17-55 IS. When light falls, with a 17-40 I would prob pack it back my bag. WIth the 17-55 I can go on shooting and shooting.
Look at the kind of photos the lens can get you, instead of secondary factors like L designation, better FF compatibility. Ya, the 17-55 may feel "fragile" and is not "weather-proof", but neither is my 20D/30D/400D.
It is a very sharp lens, corner sharpness is adequate.
With a 1.6X cam, the 17-55 IS is the "perfect" companion ZOOM lens that will sometimes get you pictures that you will get with no other lens in the similar range and category.
Just get it and enjoy it. Canon didnt sell the 17-55 IS ef-s lens at $1500 for it to be a dud.
Its almost like the ef-s lens got a 4 stops advantage over the 17-40!!
If I have 1.6 crop i will get the 17-55 IS. When light falls, with a 17-40 I would prob pack it back my bag. WIth the 17-55 I can go on shooting and shooting.
Look at the kind of photos the lens can get you, instead of secondary factors like L designation, better FF compatibility. Ya, the 17-55 may feel "fragile" and is not "weather-proof", but neither is my 20D/30D/400D.
It is a very sharp lens, corner sharpness is adequate.
With a 1.6X cam, the 17-55 IS is the "perfect" companion ZOOM lens that will sometimes get you pictures that you will get with no other lens in the similar range and category.
Just get it and enjoy it. Canon didnt sell the 17-55 IS ef-s lens at $1500 for it to be a dud.
this is almost a similar thought to mine.
but Yoke, how do u access the possibility of more dust from 17-55 compared to the L?
does it not matter to you? cos i may be harping over an insignificant issue.
but Yoke, how do u access the possibility of more dust from 17-55 compared to the L?
does it not matter to you? cos i may be harping over an insignificant issue.
the 17-55 extends when zooming unlike the 17-40 n 16-35. this makes the 17-55 more prone to having dust inside the lens.
if i had the money, i'd go for 17-55 over 16-35. cos it has a more usable range. IS not crucial but comes in handy.
but since i don't have enough money, i settled for the 17-40 instead.
i didnt consider 3rd party lenses cos the AF is slow n noisy.
i also prefer 17-55 cos its zoom ring is on the outside n is much much wider unlike the L lenses.
by the way, i've used all three lenses before settling for my 17-40.
if i had the money, i'd go for 17-55 over 16-35. cos it has a more usable range. IS not crucial but comes in handy.
but since i don't have enough money, i settled for the 17-40 instead.
i didnt consider 3rd party lenses cos the AF is slow n noisy.
i also prefer 17-55 cos its zoom ring is on the outside n is much much wider unlike the L lenses.
by the way, i've used all three lenses before settling for my 17-40.
Non L-lens are non-weather sealed, so they MAY suck in a small amt of dust. But its NOT like after one month of usage the lens will be filled with dust. There are so many non-L lens Canon produces and I dun think they are made to "collect" dust THAT easily. Very small amount after a long time. Even so, I usually use it at the wider aperture for walkaround shoot, so dust is not an issue to IQ. But it can be easily resolved, bring ot to CSC and get it dust-cleaned yearly, only a small fee. I would concentrated the IQ of the lens more than the secondary dust issue. Yes it may exist but it is not gonna make this lens any worse than it deserves.
If got $$ don't buy 17-55 leow.. will buy 16-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8 and a FF body :lovegrin:
17-55mm F2.8 IS USM is now $1450+
Seems that the price drop $300 according to the last update on the reference list on CS....
Buy buy buy mai tu liao! unlesss it drops somemore which is really werid. cause it will be too cheap alraedy! haha....
Seems that the price drop $300 according to the last update on the reference list on CS....
Buy buy buy mai tu liao! unlesss it drops somemore which is really werid. cause it will be too cheap alraedy! haha....
There's no such thing as "too cheap" for the consumer. The cheaper, the better. :thumbsup:
Have been using the 17-55 for a few weeks liao... just tot that at f2.8, not exactly razor sharp as what some reviews make it out to be. Most of the time i shoot at f4 and above. At these apertures, most of the time, pictures are VERY sharp... 
So if possible, i will try to avoid the 2.8 range. At first i tot my copy of 17-55 is lousy but after sending it to canon for a check, they told me it is within specs... so if you buy this lens to use it at 2.8, dun expect razor sharp pic at this aperture.
IS is a very good feature for me, together with the not too long focal length, I can shoot night scene without using tripod. Handheld shots of up to 1 sec produce reasonably okie pictures. Of cos, motion blur cannot be avoided lar...
all in all, i think the 17-55 is a good buy for me and serves a very useful focal range.
I have not used the 17-40 so not comments on that...
hope that this info is helpful...
So if possible, i will try to avoid the 2.8 range. At first i tot my copy of 17-55 is lousy but after sending it to canon for a check, they told me it is within specs... so if you buy this lens to use it at 2.8, dun expect razor sharp pic at this aperture. IS is a very good feature for me, together with the not too long focal length, I can shoot night scene without using tripod. Handheld shots of up to 1 sec produce reasonably okie pictures. Of cos, motion blur cannot be avoided lar...
all in all, i think the 17-55 is a good buy for me and serves a very useful focal range.
I have not used the 17-40 so not comments on that...
hope that this info is helpful...
There is a significant difference between 17-55 f2.8 IS and 50mm f1.4.
for the 17-55 IS, you might be able to take handhold shots of stationary subjects at 1/6 or 1/10 at 50mm, but if you're taking people, it's really slow shutter speed and any movement from them will result in motion blur.
For the 50mm f1.4, you might be able to get enough shutter speed to take at 1/50 and thus enough to stop subject movement. But, the DOF will be quite shallow and it's also easy to get OOF shots
I second that... prime 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 image quality are super... easily beats L Zoom lens hands down. :sweat:
- Status
Similar threads
