Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions thread
Collin85 Regular Member • Posts: 463
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

I own the 17-40L and here's my take:

If you do mainly landscapes, have no real need for a fast lens and want a lens with impeccable build quality, the 17-40L is a real winner. Even if you do do low-light work, good flash techniques can overcome the lack of f/2.8.

If you do alot of low-light work (i.e want the f/2.8), better bokeh, prefer the longer range (I must admit that sometimes it would be useful if the 17-40 just had a slightly longer range), need IS and don't care too much about build quality, then the 17-55 might be the answer.

Just analyse what kind of photography you do and you will find your answer!

Good luck.

Jack Wilson wrote:

This thread is causing me grief :^)

I am using a 20D and trying to decide between a 17-55 IS and 17-40L
and I do shoot some weddings where I am in a flash restricted
church, which the 17-55 would seem ideally suited for.....

and I am torn between the 2 ....

Jack

-- hide signature --

Collin

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
AAJ
jgb
jgb
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow