EF 17-40mm f/4L or EF 28mm f/1.8 Prime? I own 50mm

Started Jan 12, 2013 | Questions thread
Chev Chelios
Junior MemberPosts: 46
Like?
I think you misunderstood the OP
In reply to wildplaces, Jan 14, 2013

wildplaces wrote:

The one part you don't address is the portability, which OP asks about at the end of his inquiry. The 17-40L is a relatively small, light lens.

The OP was talking about space in his shooting "environment" and not being able to back-up to get everything in view with his longer lens. He wasn't taking about space in his camera bag!

But anyway...

The 17-40L is 83.5 x 96.8mm, and weighs 475g

The EF-S 15-85 IS is 81.6×87.5mm and weighs weighs 575g.

So the EF-S lens is slightly heavier (100g), but is physically smaller than the 17-40L.

It also goes slightly wider (15mm vs 17mm).

It also goes significantly longer (40mm vs 85mm).

It also has IS, which is very useful for video, as does the excellent EF-S 17-55 f2.8.

5 or 6 years ago the 17-40L was a decent choice for a rebel camera. But now there are so many alternative (some may say better) options than the 17-40 that the only reasons to still consider the L lens for a crop camera is if you really need the L-build quality (which is good, but not that great), or if you want a non-extending zoom.

Otherwise the 17-40 L has a limited zoom range and is slow (when every stop counts, f2.8 vs f4 can make a difference). And it doesn't have IS. 17-55/2.8 IS is a really no-brainer if the OP has got the cash. For the OP, IS will come in handy for video too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow