tashmooflats
Well-known member
Anyone use the17-40L on the EOS 7D or other crop bodies? Is it a decent walk around lens vs say the 15-85mm EF-S?
Thanks!
Thanks!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
17-40L Walk Around
- Thread starter tashmooflats
- Start date
ed rader
Veteran Member
i've used it as a walkaround on 1.6 crop but that was before the day when there were better choices. 17-55 IS would be my first choice today ... 15-85 is a little more super-zoomish than i care for 
.
ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
.ed rader
--
my galleries:
http://erader.zenfolio.com/
fotoriffic
Leading Member
I've used the 17-40 as my main lens on my 40D for the past 2 years. I found it to be satisfactory most of the time but once in a while I wished it could go a little longer. F/4 is harder to use indoors compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 but that's why I hade my 430EX. I went with the 17-40 over the 17-55 because of the build quality and because it met my needs. Also, L lenses have better resale value. In fact, I'm meeting a buyer in 20 minutes who is going to buy it from me for $25 less than I paid for it 2 years ago. So basically, I rented it for $12.50 per year. Not bad. I just picked up a 24-70 to be my main lens because I needed more of the long end and didn't want to pay $1000 for an EF-S lens with inferior build quality (although image quality is up there with any lens) that wouldn't hold it's value as well.
The 17-55 is highly recommended on this forum but there's no real "perfect" walk around lens. You have to decide what's important to you and where you will make compromises. Good luck.
--
Fotoriffic
If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.
Hi,
Sharpness is about the same with these lenses, the 15-85 shows a bit more CA. The 15-85 vignettes much more than the 17-40.
It is a choice between a nice versatile lens with IS or very good build L with slightly better optics.
Regards,
Sandor.
Use the 17-40 on a 40D . It's focal range is a bit narrow, the 15-85 has a more versatile range. Build quality of the 17-40 is very good, handling is great. With a filter attached it is weather sealed, the 15-85 is not.
Sharpness is about the same with these lenses, the 15-85 shows a bit more CA. The 15-85 vignettes much more than the 17-40.
It is a choice between a nice versatile lens with IS or very good build L with slightly better optics.
Regards,
Sandor.
Wayndom
Senior Member
It certainly can't compare to the 17-55, which is significantly sharper on a crop body.
Understand, the 17-40 is designed for FF, and on an FF body, it will outresolve (on a frame-by-frame comparison) the 17-55. But that's because the larger format squeezes more resolution out of the lens. In absolute terms (both lenses on the same camera), the 17-55 outresolves it by a comfortable margin.
Add to that the facts that the 17-55 is image stabilized and a full stop faster (and it's especially sharp wide open), and there's no comparison.
Either the 17-55 or the 15-85 is a better choice for a crop camera.
BTW, don't allow yourself to be seduced by the "L" and the red ring. Most reviews of the 17-55 and the 15-85 point out that they're clearly L-quality optics, just without the metal, weatherproofed barrels.
Another poster mentioned that L lenses have better resale value -- I'd amend that to "Canon's better lenses" have better resale value. The high value of the 17-55 is not exactly a well-kept secret, and it retains high resale value, too (probably because virtually no one who buys one wants to sell it). I just Googled it, and found used 17-55's for only $100 less than new ones (about a 10% loss in value).
--
50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22
Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 28 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8
Understand, the 17-40 is designed for FF, and on an FF body, it will outresolve (on a frame-by-frame comparison) the 17-55. But that's because the larger format squeezes more resolution out of the lens. In absolute terms (both lenses on the same camera), the 17-55 outresolves it by a comfortable margin.
Add to that the facts that the 17-55 is image stabilized and a full stop faster (and it's especially sharp wide open), and there's no comparison.
Either the 17-55 or the 15-85 is a better choice for a crop camera.
BTW, don't allow yourself to be seduced by the "L" and the red ring. Most reviews of the 17-55 and the 15-85 point out that they're clearly L-quality optics, just without the metal, weatherproofed barrels.
Another poster mentioned that L lenses have better resale value -- I'd amend that to "Canon's better lenses" have better resale value. The high value of the 17-55 is not exactly a well-kept secret, and it retains high resale value, too (probably because virtually no one who buys one wants to sell it). I just Googled it, and found used 17-55's for only $100 less than new ones (about a 10% loss in value).
--
50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22
Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 28 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8
I've used the 17-40 on a 40D for about a year now, and really like it. I rarely take it off - I went with this lens, primarily, because I envision going full frame in the next year, and because it was priced well, comparatively. The 17-55 IS is faster, and is stabilized, but it's twice as much (if I recall correctly) as the 17-40. It's been sharp, and has great colors, and I find the focal length just right. I sometimes wish for a wider perspective, but I rarely need any more length.
Joe Photo Lover
Senior Member
A fine lens but not a great walk around lens for a crop body as there are now several better lenses for that task. At one time it was among the better choices but not anymore. Just not enough range or speed and it lacks IS.
Jettubby
Leading Member
I have had my 17-40 for several years and in the studio it's what I use most. As a walk around lens not so much. If I need the wider angle then yes but I mostly use my 70-200 2.8IS which blows the 17-40 out of the water in image quality; or I use my Tamron 28-75. I'm sure I'll get screamed at for saying this but after my own image test several years ago my Tamron 28-75 is sharper than the 17-40L. That Tamron is just about the best lens they made for Canon.
Bottom line I do like the 17-40 lens a lot. It's not a good all-around walk-around lens but when some wider angles are needed it performs very well.
Bottom line I do like the 17-40 lens a lot. It's not a good all-around walk-around lens but when some wider angles are needed it performs very well.
masak
Senior Member
I have used it as a walk around on a crop and it was fine, but a bit short for me for a one lens solution. If you are not going FF or 1.3 any time soon I think one of the efs zooms would be better. The 17-55 is a good lens. I haven't paid much attention to the 15-85 or know anyone that has one, but the range is very appealing. When I would be limited to one lens I would take the 17-85 over the 17-40 even though IQ took a bit of a hit.
--
http://mitchseaver.com/
--
http://mitchseaver.com/
Montana500
Veteran Member
If your focus is landscapes, grab it. I use it in combination with a fast prime. I don't consider 2.8 "fast", really. For the price of the 17-55 IS you could have a 17-40 and a 50 1.4. Use the 17-40 for landscapes and the 50 as your indoor lens or walkaround low light lens.
Also, the 17-55 is poorly built and has a fragile IS system which you always hear people complain about. Not to mention it sucks in dust and has poor flare performance.These are not things I would find acceptable for where I shoot. If your goal is landscape, grab the 17-40.
Also, the 17-55 is poorly built and has a fragile IS system which you always hear people complain about. Not to mention it sucks in dust and has poor flare performance.These are not things I would find acceptable for where I shoot. If your goal is landscape, grab the 17-40.
richj20
Forum Pro
I've heard good things about both as general purpose lenses. It seems to me that your own requirements regarding focal length and f-stop would determine your choice!
--
Careful photographers run their own tests.
richj20
Forum Pro
As one who uses the 17-55, I've not found your comments to be applicable. I've photographed in the dusty, windy California deserts, and down on the river banks of the Kern River. I have no complaints about the "build quality," although I don't bang my lens against tree trunks, nor drop it into the bag against other stuff.
A trip last month up in the California sequoias had various wintry lighting conditions in which the lens performed quite well:
regards,
-rich
--
Careful photographers run their own tests.
Since I have a crop body and can not use the 17-55 or 15-85 lenses. =)
I use my 17-40 quite often as a walk around lens when I'm on vacation. I am more of a landscape guy so I guess that isn't much of a surprise. I also have a 28-135IS that I used to use all the time as my walk around but I honestly haven't even touched that lens in months.
--
http://www.alloverphotos.com
This is my first web site, it's more a test of design than display.
I use my 17-40 quite often as a walk around lens when I'm on vacation. I am more of a landscape guy so I guess that isn't much of a surprise. I also have a 28-135IS that I used to use all the time as my walk around but I honestly haven't even touched that lens in months.
--
http://www.alloverphotos.com
This is my first web site, it's more a test of design than display.
Huh,this makes no sense, you use a crop body and cannot use the 17-55 or 15-85 on it ?
Both lenses are disigned for crop camera's thus can only be used on them.
The 17-40 can be used on crop and FF bodies since it is an EF design.
Regards,
Sandor.
close, but not entirely true.
the EF-S lenses are made for the 1.6 crop APS-C cameras such as the rebel and the X0D family.
I have a 1D which is a 1.3 crop and does not accept EF-S lenses.
http://www.alloverphotos.com
This is my first web site, it's more a test of design than display.
the EF-S lenses are made for the 1.6 crop APS-C cameras such as the rebel and the X0D family.
I have a 1D which is a 1.3 crop and does not accept EF-S lenses.
--
http://www.alloverphotos.com
This is my first web site, it's more a test of design than display.
PhillipA
Veteran Member
... in Europe on a 20D in 2005. I have some very detailed 24" x 16" prints on my walls from those images that I am very happy with. I sold mine when I bought my 5D and 24-105. I then realised what a good lens it was and bought another. I used it on a 5DII just this weekend and I'm still very happy with the images it produces. It may not be as versatile as some other lenses on a crop body, but don't let anyone tell you the 17-40 doesn't have the image quality !
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
PhillipA
Veteran Member
While true - it's a funny way to express things - If you had said "I have a 1.3 crop body" then the confusion wouldn't have existed.
--
Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '
Just my way of saying that these lenses are NOT made for crop sensors but for a specific sensor.
And on a side note, I wish they would have made this lens (focal lenth, aperture and IS feature) in a model that I could use. I would have bought it instead of the 17-40. =(
--
http://www.alloverphotos.com
This is my first web site, it's more a test of design than display.
richj20
Forum Pro
Why did you decide on a 1.3 crop body?
regards,
-rich
--
Careful photographers run their own tests.
richj20
Forum Pro
Looking at many images posted in various galleries, I've concluded that all of the best lenses produce wonderful image quality. It comes down to choosing focal length and speed, don't you think?!
regards,
-rich
--
Careful photographers run their own tests.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum