Buying new lens 17-40 or else?

rebel99 wrote:

ktownbill wrote:

rebel99 wrote:

RS_RS wrote:

rebel99 wrote:

Lemming51 wrote:

RussellZ wrote:

I've seen so many reviews on lenses and lost any hope of committing which one to get.

Ideally I want lens that's good for everything but those do not exist. This is why I need your help picking something that works best for me. I would like lens to be able to take landscapes, some night shots something that can take on vacations (walk around lens) defiantly want wide angle lens. This is why 17-40L is something I’ve been looking at for a long time. However then, I came across 16-35 2.8L II, 17-55 f2.8 IS and EF 20mm 2.8 USM

Right now I have Canon T1i with 50mm 1.8 prime and two kit lenses 18-55 and 55-250. Since T1i is getting old I've been thinking about getting Canon EOS 70D (later this year, which most likely I’ll get with kit lens 18-135). But that’s in the future. I want to get new lens that I can take on upcoming vacation (in 2 weeks).

Can you please suggest what best to take that won’t be an overkill on T1i or 70D.

Please help!

EF 17-40 f/4L USM is sub-optimal on "crop" bodies like your T1i and anticipated 70D.

i would disagree with you and the ones who have the same opinion here are a couple of galleries that are taken entirely with 17-40mm f4/40D. i am not sure even if you have or used the 17-40 mm f4:

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p572883877

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p125854181

cheerz.

I used a 17~40 on a crop body (20D) before there were good alternatives available. And yes, you can produce perfectly satisfactory images with it. But there are now far better choices for crop factor use, like the EF-S 17~55/2.8 and the EF-S 15~85. The 17~40 does best what it was designed for, as an ultra-wide zoom on FF, which is how I now use it.

appreciate your opinion but you haven't presented any evidence to substantiate your allegation yes, i understand that there are better lenses than 17-40mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8ll for example, but at a very high price! ef-s 17-55 f2.8 is a very good lens optically, however, it does't have the "L" build of the 17-40 f4, it is more expensive, it cannot be used with FF cameras, and it collects dust like a vacuum cleaner inside the optical elements! it takes a while to understand the weaknesses and strong points of the ef 17-40 f4, i remember i hated it in the beginning, now, it is one of my favorites and i strongly recommend it to everyone interested

cheerz.

Here is the proof that there are better lenses for the same price. On a crop body the 17-40 is not sharper than the 15-85. The proof is in the test chart I linked. The OP is not talking about FF options like you suggest in your reply. FF is a game changer regarding the 17-40. Not only is the 15-85 sharper, it is much wider and longer in focal length AND the same price.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

regarding charts, i hardly noticed any difference. i till think it would be far better if you post some photos to substantiate your point, no more "charts". you can see the photos posted in my link which proves your point moot

If you noticed no difference then your argument that the 17-40 is better is invalid. Thank you for arguing my case. It was my pleasure. Regarding your photos, once again, NOBODY is saying you can't take good photos with the 17-40. Others, including yourself, are saying the 2 lenses are at least equal in IQ. What is your argument anyways? We are on the same page regarding IQ.

Are you going to argue that the 17-40 resolves the same detail FF vs Crop also? Take a look at the comparison while you are waiting for my images from the 2 lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3