July 25, 2014, 10:27:44 AM

Author Topic: 17-40 VS 17-55  (Read 4233 times)

Jixr

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
17-40 VS 17-55
« on: October 23, 2013, 03:44:30 PM »
hey guys, i'm inbetween a rock and a hard place.

here is the deal. First off I use a Canon T3i and have no intentions of getting a full frame body.


Wanting a good walk around lens, I recently picked up like new used 17-40mm F4 L, and its a really good lens,  Though I'm really considering trading/selling it for a Canon 17-55mm 2.8.

I've tried both lens's out ( in a store ), and I really like the 2.8 and IS of the 55, but the build quality is poor compared to the L ( if you look up with an extended barrel it will creep back down ) the zoom and focus rings are not as smooth, and I dont like that the barrel extends so much when zooming.

the 40 is pretty good, the only complaint i have is the f4 is not as fast, and ( probably due to my inexperience than the lens ) night shots i'm lucky if I get 1 out of 3 pictures to be useable. I love that its smaller and lighter than the 55, the build quality is amazing. The only thing I dont like is that its its a bit slow. I don't yet own a flash and while using it the other day for a friends portraits, and I ended up getting better shots with my 50mm 1.8 than the L. Though mine is used, its in flawless shape, and despite being made in 2004 the previous owner had a recipt showing he bought it only 6 months ago, and it was too wide for his full frame.

I went with the L because it was in good shape, and I feel like I got a good deal on it. And I love the wide angle and its nice for indoor shots and landscape/architecture and some street style photography. Currently used 55's are in the $650+ range on my local Craigslist. And I got lucky and got a deal on my L. New both lens's currently retail about the same, so I figured I should be able to do a 1:1 trade.


Do you guys think I should try to sell/trade it for the 17-55mm 2.8?

I do wish my L was a 2.8 IS, but the build quality concerns me a bit. as ( to me ) both are very expensive lens's and I would like them to last. I also ( my inexperience ) dislike the 2.8 because I have a hard time getting (espc at wide shots ) in focus, i'll often miss the area that I want to get in focus, and the f4 makes it a bit easier for me. ( though I'm aware you can stop down the 2.8 )


opinions, ideas, views, thoughts all welcome.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 03:52:55 PM by Jixr »

canon rumors FORUM

17-40 VS 17-55
« on: October 23, 2013, 03:44:30 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2013, 04:33:57 PM »
Wanting a good walk around lens, I recently picked up like new used 17-40mm F4 L, and its a really good lens,  Though I'm really considering trading/selling it for a Canon 17-55mm 2.8.

Sell the 17-40L unless you really want the sealing (though your Rebel isn't sealed) or the build quality - this L lens isn't designed for crop and not very sharp wide open. I used it as a walkaround on crop for some time (with a larger lens hood), but now that I also have a ff I see the difference and only use the 17-40L @f8-f11 on crop if I don't want to change lenses.
 
If you want to stay with crop, better get a real aps-c ultrawide like the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16, they're easier to design for aps-c than on full frame and thus you get better image quality for less money.

I also ( my inexperience ) dislike the 2.8 because I have a hard time getting (espc at wide shots ) in focus, i'll often miss the area that I want to get in focus

Use Magic Lantern with focus peaking (and the extra live view gain so you can use your camera for night vision) - problem solved.

Jixr

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2013, 04:45:48 PM »
i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4356
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2013, 04:57:14 PM »
i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.

Still, if you shoot crop and want a crop standard zoom there's little reason not to get an aps-c lens because the inherent system advantage (smaller mirror) is also good for the 17- or 15- range.

Personally I'd get the 15-85 for the larger zoom range, but if you really want/need f2.8 the 17-55 is also fine except for the unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build sealed or sturdy aps-lenses (thanks, Canon!).

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2013, 05:09:38 PM »
i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.

Still, if you shoot crop and want a crop standard zoom there's little reason not to get an aps-c lens because the inherent system advantage (smaller mirror) is also good for the 17- or 15- range.

Personally I'd get the 15-85 for the larger zoom range, but if you really want/need f2.8 the 17-55 is also fine except for the unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build sealed or sturdy aps-lenses (thanks, Canon!).

+1   IMO, the 15-85 is the best single lens solution for APSC. You can pick up a cheap prime or two if you need faster. Canon wants you to upgrade your camera first, and then upgrade your lens(s).

Jixr

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2013, 05:15:54 PM »
Yeah, which is why i'm a bit worried to give up my L.

its not the best built lens ever, but better than the 55 for sure.

pretty much its either build quality or a fast lens with IS


I know there is no wonder lens, but I'm trying to slim down my camera bag as much as possible. and unfortunately there are no cheap wide angle fast primes. And I suppose I can just post it on the local CL and see if I get a bite. No harm in doing that.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 05:20:06 PM by Jixr »

Menace

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1286
  • New Zealand
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 09:18:00 PM »
Given the choice, I'd rather have a faster lens than a weather sealed esp if the body isn't sealed either.

Ask yourself If you are person who looks after their other electronic gear such mobile phone, iPad, lap top etc etc do you end up replacing them constantly? As long as you (reasonably) take care of 17-55 you should be ok.

Also, do you shoot much in dusty/wet/harsh conditions?

1Dx | 5D III
85 1.2L II | 100 2.8 | 400 2.8L IS II 
24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 09:18:00 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2013, 09:53:52 PM »
The 17-55 feels rough around the edges but its durability is no worse than an L zoom. I used it for several years, it traveled around the world with me, and did not blink (well, expect when it was taking a shot). No creep, no dust either. It does not look fancy and does not feel smooth but it is a better choice than the 17-40: faster, more reach, IS, sharper overall.

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 454
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2013, 10:18:45 PM »
If you want the sharpest and fastest normall zoom for a crop body get the sigma 18-35 1.8 , just get the dock with it because if you are willing to tune then its hands down the best.

Policar

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2013, 10:28:45 PM »
On APS-C the 17-40mm L is optically poor. I would take the (significantly optically superior) 18-55mm kit zoom over it any day UNLESS weather sealing were a factor.

The 17-55mm is a very good lens and affordable now, but not that much better than the kit lens in some respects. However it is SO much better than the 17-40mm L. You get a faster lens by a full stop, IS, decent macro, more reliable AF (imo), and a focal length that is useable for portraiture. No comparison.

The Sigma is GREAT but focus is unreliable, which kind of kills the deal.

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1327
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2013, 11:24:14 PM »
Hmmm... For that kind of money and having no intention of moving to FF, the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC or Non-VC can be a little bit better alternative than a 17-55 especially if you intend on getting an UWA also.  But of course, the 17-55 is better optically and will serve you well.  If you opt for the Sigma F1.8 which is optically good but AF seems a problem, then just make sure you can get it from a store where you can easily return and exchange if something isn't working properly.  F4 in APS-C is limiting especially at not well lit places.  I'd rather have a couple of primes than the L then.

FTb-n

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2013, 12:33:25 AM »
Get the 17-55.  I used mine heavily for a year before upgrading to a 5DIII with a 24-105.  Optically, the 17-55 is an L lens.  Put a B+W or a Hoya HD clear filter on front and you don't need to worry about the much talked about dust issue.  Not dust in mine.  Due to the design of the zoom mechanism, the resistance will tighten slightly around 24mm.  When  I fist got my lens, this bothered me.  But, when I shot with it, I forgot all about it -- not an issue.

If using the lens in combat situations, military or press photog, maybe the "build quality" would be a concern.  But, I think this is much overhyped.  Don't worry about it.  The 17-55 is a great crop lens.  You'll love the benefits of 2.8 and IS.

I still have mine and still use it.   (I have kids getting interested in photography now.)
5D3, 7D | 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105 f4L IS, 35 f2 IS, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 40 f2.8...  |  PowerShot S100

duydaniel

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2013, 01:11:31 AM »
I vote for 17-55 f2.8
but I recommend you to take a look at the Tamron version instead.
It is supposed to be sharper than the Canon

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2013, 01:11:31 AM »

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2013, 01:11:52 AM »
The 17-40 L works very well on APS-C, but the 17-55 2.8 IS is better.

Notice that the 17-55 2.8 IS is internal a L lens. The 17-55 2.8 IS has L glasses in it.

I personally like the 17-55 2.8 IS from f/3.2 (3.5) up to f/11. At f/2.8 the lens is not so bad as many other lenses, but if you compare it with the 24-70 2.8 II L on FF you see, that the IQ of the 24-70 2.8 II L is a very big step over the 17-55 2.8 IS.

andersde

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2013, 02:24:58 AM »
Given the choice, I'd rather have a faster lens than a weather sealed esp if the body isn't sealed either.

Ask yourself If you are person who looks after their other electronic gear such mobile phone, iPad, lap top etc etc do you end up replacing them constantly? As long as you (reasonably) take care of 17-55 you should be ok.

This is a really good point.   Too often we see a lens knocked because of 'build quality' issues or lack of weather sealing.     Unless you need to shoot in poor weather conditions or are particularly hard on your gear it's just not necessary.   You should go for the lens that gives the best results for what you need.

For crop I'd choose one of canon 17-55,  sigma 18-35 or 15-85.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 17-40 VS 17-55
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2013, 02:24:58 AM »