Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Started Jun 17, 2006 | Discussions
jgb Veteran Member • Posts: 7,505
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

Well, certainly the 17-40 f4 would not be an ideal lens for "flash free" photography. I own both of these lenses and can tell you that the 17-55 is useable in more situations than the 17-40, and it's also a bit sharper as well. The comments about flare are also true, the 17-55 is probably the worst lens I own regarding flare (I own 14 lenses). The 17-40 is virtually flare-free.

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 --
Sandman762 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

NO TEXT

jgb Veteran Member • Posts: 7,505
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

I own both of these lenses and have shot thousands of photos with both. About the only negatives of the 17-55 are flare resistance and price. Light falloff is a non-issue due to PP fixes. As far as I'm concerned, build quality is fine with the 17-55 although for the price you pay, you might expect better.

jgb

-- hide signature --
digital dreamer Junior Member • Posts: 33
Consider this...

Tomm wrote:

5) This lens is pretty expensive, considering that it doesn't do
full frame. The 17-40 goes for ~$700, so I think the 17-55 would
be a fair deal at ~$800 including the hood. Instead, it goes for
~$1100, and the hood is extra, which makes for a more painful value
proposition.

I'm currently leaning toward keeping the 17-40, but it's close,
and I'm vacillating by the hour.

B&H still has their May special on this lens. Combined with the $50 instant rebate the price is $875, not $1100!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/495684-USA/Canon_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

John

bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Canon 17-55 impressions (vs 17-40)

+: sharpness, focal length, color, handholding
-: falloff, flare, ergonomics, build, price

Shooting 17-40, I could improve sharpness and color with Photoshop,
carry an extra lens for focal length, and brace myself against
something for handholding.

Shooting 17-55, I could use a hood for flare, but it's difficult to
repair falloff, and there's nothing I can do for ergonomics and
build. Price isn't a critical issue for me, as long as I feel that
I'm getting my money's worth.

I'm currently leaning toward keeping the 17-40, but it's close, and
I'm vacillating by the hour. I'm going to shoot some more tomorrow
to get a better feel for what it can do, and hopefully that'll help
me decide whether to switch.

i'm a bit confused. you say everything is better on the 17-55 performance wise aside from flare and falloff and then you say you are leaning toward the 17-40? as for build, do you really think it will matter? ar eyou shooting in extreme evironments? as for ergonomics, it is bulkier but it is still incredibly easily handholdable. as for fall-off, will you be using it near wide open often in situation where at the same time there is important info in the corners? and you can apply some anti-vignetting processing too. flare might be an issue, but moreso than all the pluses? anyway, an alternate way to think about it.

Zbyniu Regular Member • Posts: 109
Flaring / ghosting

Personally I must admit that 17t-55 is very susceptible to flaring. Shooting against the sun is a horror - you are presened with a series of colorful sun ghosts in different diameters
But still it is a great lens.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Zbyszek

PhillipA Veteran Member • Posts: 5,505
Re: Flaring / ghosting

Wow - you certainly searched back a long way !
--

No, it's true - he IS the U.S. President!

soccplayer07 Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Flaring / ghosting

haha

strat60 Regular Member • Posts: 390
no text

no text

Vimax Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Flaring / ghosting

All technical, pricing or other hairsplitting aside....... compare pictures by these lenses on Flickr from a whole bunch of different people. Lets hear a verdict from this forum just on pure "picture delight" - let the logic rest for a while.

17-55 http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_17-55mm/pool/

17-40 http://www.flickr.com/groups/_canon_17-40_f4l_usm/pool/

 Vimax's gear list:Vimax's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
soccplayer07 Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Flaring / ghosting

which lens were u hoping to push...the 17-40 pics look much better to me.

genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: Flaring / ghosting

soccplayer07 wrote:

the 17-40 pics look much better to me.

Then it has to be the absolute truth then...

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Vimax Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Flaring / ghosting

soccplayer07 wrote:

which lens were u hoping to push...the 17-40 pics look much better to
me.

The 17-40 .......... coz on sheer logical & technical hairsplittting the 17-55 seems to win on most counts at almost all forums on the web. Prrof the puddding is in the - pics

 Vimax's gear list:Vimax's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
soccplayer07 Regular Member • Posts: 283
Re: Flaring / ghosting

just making sure I was comparing correctly...side note probably two or more different cameras involved...

Zbyniu Regular Member • Posts: 109
Re: Flaring / ghosting

Actually this was a kind of error
I found this thread in google and did forget to check its date

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Zbyszek

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads