17-55 versus 17-40 on 50D (or other landscape options)

Hi everyone,

I've been doing a lot of research and trying to find the next lens for my 50D.

Have the 50mm f1.4 which has been amazing and captured some great shots but looking for something a little wider as a 'walkaround' lens. Currently leaning towards the 17-40 f4L based on a few factors, including the fact that this could be used on a FF if I upgrade to a new body later on.

That said, it's a tough call to work out what lens to go for so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on these two lenses or if there were any other options worth considering.

Cheers,
Hangie33

I had the 17-40 on my 50D and sold it and replaced it with the 15-85. It was a wise move. I don't like the 17-40 on a crop. To answer your question if it's the 17-55 your thinking about then get it as it's a great lens and would do well with landscapes. If you go FF in the near future then sell the 17-55. But I wouldn't put a 17-40 on a crop it's just not a good fit.

Thanks for your feedback. What was it that you didn't like about using the 17-40 on your 50D? It would be great to understand what your experience was.

Look at your language in this post, you're not even 100% that you're going to buy a FF body in the near future. You're just using that reason to make the pros list longer for the 17-40 f/4L.

Let me assure you now ... The best lens you can get is the one that excels on the body you have right now.

The 17-40 is a pretty bad match for crop cameras, it has no reach, it has no true wide end, and it is not even fast ... Are you sure you're not getting it simply because it is an L lens?

The 17-55mm does everything that lens does ... But better. If you don't want to spend the money on the 17-55mm the 15-85mm is just as capable.

Hangie33 said:

Hi everyone,

I've been doing a lot of research and trying to find the next lens for my 50D.

Have the 50mm f1.4 which has been amazing and captured some great shots but looking for something a little wider as a 'walkaround' lens. Currently leaning towards the 17-40 f4L based on a few factors, including the fact that this could be used on a FF if I upgrade to a new body later on.

That said, it's a tough call to work out what lens to go for so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on these two lenses or if there were any other options worth considering.

Cheers,
Hangie33

Click to expand...

Hangie33 said:

Thanks for your feedback. What was it that you didn't like about using the 17-40 on your 50D? It would be great to understand what your experience was.

Click to expand...

I didn't like the range I was getting, I found it very limiting on a crop. Now that I have the 15-85 I have a much more range and it's also sharper than my 17-40 was. The 15-85 is truly a crop lens where as the 17-40 is not in my opinion. The results I'm getting with my 15-85 are outstanding compared to the 17-40 when I owned it. The right decision is the 15-85.

Good luck in your decision.

Thanks so much for the great input.

In regards to the comment that I was just looking for an 'L' lens, the main reason the L caught my eye was after I read a number of people complaining about the 17-55's apparent appetite for dust, as opposed to the overall weather-sealing on the 17-40.

That said, I can definitely see that the better lens for the 50D may be the 17-55 or 17-85. I'm perhaps more keen on how the lens peforms wide so might have to look at how these two stack up on that front.

Thanks again.

The choice is rather simple. The 17-55mm is made with L-glass. It is faster F 2.8 and it has IS. Even the reach (55mm) is better. Don't bother with that 17-40mm L-lens; go for the 17-55mm EF-S. It's awesome!

Hangie33 said:

Thanks so much for the great input.

In regards to the comment that I was just looking for an 'L' lens, the main reason the L caught my eye was after I read a number of people complaining about the 17-55's apparent appetite for dust, as opposed to the overall weather-sealing on the 17-40.

That said, I can definitely see that the better lens for the 50D may be the 17-55 or 17-85. I'm perhaps more keen on how the lens peforms wide so might have to look at how these two stack up on that front.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Try not to compare the 17-55 to the 17-85. The 17-55 will win big in every aspect. I think your best option is the 17-55 or the 15-85. You can't lose either way. But the final decision is yours. Again, good luck and shoot in good health.

THe 17-40 is just as wide on a crop body as the 17-55. It is not a bad lens and is built to last. It has L - Glass as it is an L lens. While it is a newer, faster lens with more reach ,the 17-55 is heavier, more expensive, extends when zoomed and has received complaints of dust entering the lens. They are both good lenses and you probably can't go wrong with either one and you are correct in that you can use the 17-40 on a FF camera. Here are some photos taken at Death Valley with the 17-40 on a crop body:









--
http://jimages.smugmug.com/

the 17-40 is a great lens and will cost far less than the 17-55 they both are 27mm on the wide end for a 1.6x and you can use it later if you go FF, you are getting some bad advice on this thread, if the focul length works for you then its just right, is f4 fast enough for you. Its a great landscape lens and all around lens on a crop camera, built well, better than the 17-55. 10-22 if you want to go wider.
--
Image's In Light
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/

Ross Murphy said:

the 17-40 is a great lens and will cost far less than the 17-55 they both are 27mm on the wide end for a 1.6x and you can use it later if you go FF, you are getting some bad advice on this thread, if the focul length works for you then its just right, is f4 fast enough for you. Its a great landscape lens and all around lens on a crop camera, built well, better than the 17-55. 10-22 if you want to go wider.
--
Image's In Light
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Listen to Ross, he is 100% right. I own the 17-40 and use it on my 1DS2 as a wide angle, and on my 7D as a standard zoom. The lens is a tad soft in the corners on full frame wide open, but pretty much sharp across the board on the 7D. The softness on full frame wide open is a non-factor since I always stop the lens down anyway. The lens is very well built and provides nice, contrasty images. I actually sold my gen 1 16-35mm 2.8L to buy the 17-40 because the faster aperture was irrelevant to me for landscape shooting, and optically the 17-40 was slightly better than the 16-35.

Clint
http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com

The first shot is on a 1DS2 full frame, the second is on the 7D:

1DS2 and 17-40mm





7D and 17-40mm





I'm pretty happy with it, but when I get the money I want to try out the Zeiss 18mm.

Clint
http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com

I think the advice he's been getting here is spot on. I've owned both lenses and find the 17-55 has better overall IQ (17-40 had more CA on the wide end under less than optimal shooting conditions, 17-55 has better contrast and color to my eyes anyway). f/2.8 throughout the range can be very helpful under certain circumstances where you need either shallower DOF or perhaps a higher shutter speed in low light... IS is also a huge advantage there as well. Build quality for the 17-55 is not an issue at all nor is the much overblown dust problem. And finally, 40mm is pretty short for the long end. 55 is not hugely better, but certainly helps in walkaround shooting or travel.

The 15-85, as stated elsewhere here, is a credible alternative with nearly equivalent IQ to the 17-55 except perhaps at the widest end. However if f/2.8 is a real advantage to you and the extra reach is no big thing, the 17-55 will remain a better choice. Either are excellent lenses. Unless you're pretty sure that you will invest in FF in the next year or so, I'd go for lenses that are better matched to a crop form factor.

Ross Murphy said:

the 17-40 is a great lens and will cost far less than the 17-55 they both are 27mm on the wide end for a 1.6x and you can use it later if you go FF, you are getting some bad advice on this thread, if the focul length works for you then its just right, is f4 fast enough for you. Its a great landscape lens and all around lens on a crop camera, built well, better than the 17-55. 10-22 if you want to go wider.
--
Image's In Light
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

It all boils down to whether or not he will move to full frame. Lenses are a BIG investment and for most people it would be short-sighted to not allow for full frame at some point. I agree with you that the 17-55 would be a better choice if you never intended to leave the APS-C format....but that's a big if. In the meantime the 17-40 is a great lens and a safe compromise.

Fair enough, Clint. My only response would be that the better quality Canon lenses really tend to hold their value well. My guess is that the 17-55 could serve the OP very well and is a terrific match to any of Canon's crop cameras. If/when he decides to move to FF, he could fairly easily recover the vast majority of that investment and replace it with a 17-40L perhaps even with some money left in his pocket. That said, if he's planning a move to FF in the near future, I'd probably go with your recommendation.

Clint Dunn said:

It all boils down to whether or not he will move to full frame. Lenses are a BIG investment and for most people it would be short-sighted to not allow for full frame at some point. I agree with you that the 17-55 would be a better choice if you never intended to leave the APS-C format....but that's a big if. In the meantime the 17-40 is a great lens and a safe compromise.

Click to expand...

I think it all boils down to what your shooting now (body wise) if your in the market for a new lens. It's clear that the 17-55, or the 15-85 is the best option over the 17-40 for a crop in regards to the OP and what he's asking advice for. If one does go FF you can always sell your lens with a very good return. To me it makes sense to buy the best for the camera your currently using, in this case it's a crop. Now, what if the OP never goes FF and buys the 17-40? Well then he missed out out on the better alternative.

Hi,

IMO, you've got good advices above. To sumarize:

• do not allow red (L) ring blinds you when choosing (as allready mentioned above). Get a lens that covers your needs.
• do not get lens for a camera you "might" have someday...in far future (..if stellar constellations is right).

And I emphasize what others have said:

EF-S 15-85: -right now, for APS-C camera, this is probably the best all purpose (walkaround) lens you can get (I say that, even I don't own this lens).

EF-S 17-55: -this is the one I have. If you can live with 17...55mm range, then this is the perfect lens (at any focal length/aperture). If constant f/2.8 isn't that important for you, then 15-85 might be of better value.

EF 17-40: -was made for FF! Meaning: focal range doesn't fit, and f/4.0 doesn't fit for APS-C needs. And you've probably noticed: today, it's normally to have IS in Canon zoom lenses.

At the end, it's your decission.. wish you luck,

Bogdan

Hi Hangie

I bought the 17-40L to go with my 30D back in March 2006 as a high quality walk around lens and its reputation is well deserved, it's a lovely lens. When I bought it I thought, like you, that I could still use it if I went FF.

In April 08 I succumbed and bought the 17-55 F2.8. The primary reason I bought the 17-55 had nothing to do with a lack of quality in the 17-40 and everything to do with the lack of IS and F4. As a general walk around lens I kept finding myself needing higher ISOs than I really wanted to use (I'm very keen on old church architecture and the insides of some churches are pretty dark!). The small increase in reach is handy too. The 17-55 is a little heavier and bulkier than the 17-40 but it's a small price to pay and, fwiw, I think the quality of output is at least the equal of the 17-40. Don't worry about the dust you'll hear about. Yes, it does get a little dust inside but it's a cinch to clean out when it finally bothers you. I clean mine out about twice a year at most and it takes no more than 5 minutes .

I cannot comment on the 15-85 as I don't have one.

Oh, and yes, I still have the 17-40 - just in case I go FF one day - but for now the 17-55, currently teamed with a 7D, is more than enough for my needs.

HTH
Paul

17-40 is NOT a general walkaround lens on a FF camera. It's a wide-angle.

Now, nothing wrong with that. But the simple truth is that, if you like that range on a crop, you're going to want something in the ballpark of the 24-70.

It's probably better to sell the 17-55 (which should keep a fair amount of its value if you take care of it well) and invest in a lens you would actually choose for a FF camera rather than view yourself as saving money by keeping a lens that you probably would never have bought if you had a full-frame camera to begin with.

Agree with what Clint wrote below.

Aside from the weather-sealed advantage (with UV filter mounted), I find that I spend less time post-editing photos when using my 17-40mm f/4 L USM lens. The colors are vibrant, sharpness on my 7D simply stunning and I am talking wide open. Stopped down to f/8 and it will be hard to beat.

Image quality is a very subjective argument to pursue. I might be able to produce awful images using my 17-40mm, and someone like Clint can produce stunning images with the 18-55mm kit. So I would like to dwell on the obvious givens - the weather sealing, the weight factor, price are all in favor of the 17-40mm while reach goes in favor of the 17-55mm. Assuming without concluding that some people are right that the 17-55mm has 5-10% better image quality, will you trade off the other advantages of the 17-40mm?

This might not make sense to a lot of people but I do find that using EF lenses on my 7D almost always result to better photos in terms of color rendition and contrast. That's the reason only 2 of my 6 lenses are EF-S. I am neither offering nor looking for any scientific explanation, that is just my experience so far.

Clint Dunn said:

Ross Murphy said:

the 17-40 is a great lens and will cost far less than the 17-55 they both are 27mm on the wide end for a 1.6x and you can use it later if you go FF, you are getting some bad advice on this thread, if the focul length works for you then its just right, is f4 fast enough for you. Its a great landscape lens and all around lens on a crop camera, built well, better than the 17-55. 10-22 if you want to go wider.
--
Image's In Light
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Listen to Ross, he is 100% right. I own the 17-40 and use it on my 1DS2 as a wide angle, and on my 7D as a standard zoom. The lens is a tad soft in the corners on full frame wide open, but pretty much sharp across the board on the 7D. The softness on full frame wide open is a non-factor since I always stop the lens down anyway. The lens is very well built and provides nice, contrasty images. I actually sold my gen 1 16-35mm 2.8L to buy the 17-40 because the faster aperture was irrelevant to me for landscape shooting, and optically the 17-40 was slightly better than the 16-35.

Clint
http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com

Click to expand...

--
Noogy
http://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos
Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 400D, Canon D10, Lumix TZ5, Kodak V1253