Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 17-55mm vs Canon EF 17-40mm

Go to last post
S

SevBair

Active member
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Some of you recommend me the 17-55mm. When reading the reviews in Camera labs, I have seen the 17-40mm which seems to be a good lens too.

What is your opinion over those 2 lenses? One is a L lens but has no IS and the other has IS but is not L... Does this make any difference?
 
we have seen these questions alot so i will make it simple.
for a crop camera get the 17-55 much sharper and has IS.

for weather sealing and the famous L and if you think you might upgrade sometime soon to a FF camera get the 17-40mm.

17-55 to me is a L lense without the sealing.

--
Shooting off
Wardenet

new photography forum opening soon.
 
SevBair said:
Hello,

Some of you recommend me the 17-55mm. When reading the reviews in
Camera labs, I have seen the 17-40mm which seems to be a good lens
too.

What is your opinion over those 2 lenses? One is a L lens but has no
IS and the other has IS but is not L... Does this make any difference?
Click to expand...
Both are good lens, the 17-55 is a cheaply built lens and so solid.
--

A camera is a black box you can capture light in. A DSLR is a black box you can capture light in and see the light
 
The 17-40 is a good lens and is reasonably priced.

But the 17-55 IS is a better lens in many ways.

It has a better zoom range.

It has a constant f/2.8 which means that you can shoot in lower light AND it enables the high precision AF sensor(s) at the center focusing point (the 17-40 will still AF, but at lower precision).

It has IS which is wonderful!

Unless you've got a full-frame body or are going to get one in the near future, I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

--
Jim H.
 
I had 17-40 f/4 L. Quality build, FF compatibility and less flare are the cons.

I now have 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It is sharper corner to corner, less barrel distortions, faster + brighter viewfinder, more reach and of course has IS.

If money is no issue and FF is not in your near future plans go for 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

In your budget include the EW83-J hood. And please, do not use a UV filter on this lens.

Regards,

George

--
Canon EOS 400D
Canon Speedlight 430 EX
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 12 II Ext.Tube

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L (gone) Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SPII XR (gone)

http://www.pbase.com/george_hondromitros
http://community.webshots.com/user/george_d_hon
 
wardenet said:
17-55 to me is a L lense without the sealing.
Click to expand...
... or the build quality.

The zoom action on the 17-55 is pretty nasty and very nasty for a £700 lens. The build q on the 17-14 L is in a completely different league. Its really a thing of beauty.

I say this as a 17-55 2.8 IS lens owner, not a 17-40 L lens owner, so I am not being biased in any way.
 
Sriracha said:
GeorgeHon,

What is the problem of having UV on 17-55 f/2.8 IS?
Brgds.
Click to expand...
I wondered that. I can only guess its vignetting - which the lens is prone too at 17mm and the filter can only make it worse.

Can't say I have found it to be a problem though. I use a UV filter on mine all the time and as well as protecting the front element it significantly reduces the dust build up behind the front element. As you may know the 17-55's are renowned for sucking in dust. After 1 year of use mine has no dust with the UV filter in place.
 
GeorgeHon said:
On 17-55, amplifies flare.
Click to expand...
Ive noticed that as well, especially at night. I took it off and i still get a bit of flare, just not as much as with it on. My Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has a UV on and i tend not to use the hood much and i still get less flare than the Canon.
Great lens though and something i can live with.

Chippy, i got mine late Jan and i have two very, very small specks (that i can see) and i haven't had a filter on mine since week two of owning it. I believe the dust comes in from the Zoom mechanism not the front element.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
I sold the 17-40 when I bought the 17-55 which I love because of its much more light sensitive constant f/2.8 lens and the image stabilization.

It is a very sharp lens and I find I use it more than any other lens I own.

http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/image/64033682
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/image/86667245

Isabel

--

'Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a significant crop' Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95
http://www.pbase.com/digipets (not only for pet digital photography!)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digicamvideo/
 
snappey said:
Chippy99 said:
wardenet said:
17-55 to me is a L lense without the sealing.
Click to expand...
... or the build quality.

The zoom action on the 17-55 is pretty nasty and very nasty for a
£700 lens.
Click to expand...
That's a gross exaggerration. The 17-55 zoom action is fine.
Click to expand...
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think its pretty horrible. Not particularly smooth and (the worst part) is that its very non-linear in its motion. i.e. its quite slack between 35 and 55mm, tightish between 35 and 20 and slack again at the wide end.

And no - that's not just my example, because I tried many samples and didn't like any of them before I finally gave in and bought one because the optics are very good.

The fact is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is much** better in this respect, and it costs 1/3rd of the price.

But of course that doesn't have the IS, nor the extra 5mm, nor full time manual focusing, nor USM etc.

But for zoom smoothness, the Tamron is in a different league to the 17-55 Canon. (And the 17-40 Canon is slightly better still.)
 
I have been delighted with the 17-40L which is a jewel in many respects, build quality, deep rich colours and lack of lens flare, as well as wonderful VFM. But it's not as sharp as the 17-55 f2.8, is a stop slower and lacks IS, though I haven't found that a particular disadvantage on these short FLs. I bought mine before the 17-55 came out; if I were buying new today, I'd get the 17-55. But I'll keep with the 17-40 for now - that lens is not the limiting factor in my photography....I am.

Michael
 
Isabel Cutler said:
I sold the 17-40 when I bought the 17-55 which I love because of its
much more light sensitive constant f/2.8 lens and the image
stabilization.

It is a very sharp lens and I find I use it more than any other lens
I own.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what other lenses you may own but have you compared it to something like the Canon 35/2?
Isabel Cutler62850 said:
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/image/64033682
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/image/86667245

Isabel

--
'Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a significant
crop' Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95
http://www.pbase.com/digipets (not only for pet digital photography!)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digicamvideo/
Click to expand...
--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/some_recent_shots
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/northern_hawk_owl

 
Chippy99 said:
snappey said:
Chippy99 said:
The zoom action on the 17-55 is pretty nasty and very nasty for a
£700 lens.
Click to expand...
That's a gross exaggerration. The 17-55 zoom action is fine.
Click to expand...
That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think its pretty horrible.
Not particularly smooth and (the worst part) is that its very
non-linear in its motion. i.e. its quite slack between 35 and 55mm,
tightish between 35 and 20 and slack again at the wide end.
Click to expand...
Not certain that I understand you. "Non-linear in its motion" would imply to me that you zoom in more at a given angular turn at some focal lengths than others. OTOH, your use of "toght" and "slack" seem to refer to requiring more force to move it at some focla lengths than others.

When I got up and fiddled with mine, to see what you were talking about, I could detect no non-linearity in the first sense. As far as the second sense is concerned, it's perceptibly easier to turn the zoom ring between 17 and about 22 mm, and then possibly also a little easier again between 45 and 55mm, but much less than in the wide end.

But I had never thought about it at all before you wrote, and it has never bothered me in the slightest.
 
i have no problems with that on my 17-55
--
Shooting off
Wardenet

new photography forum opening soon.
 
Chippy99 said:
wardenet said:
17-55 to me is a L lense without the sealing.
Click to expand...
... or the build quality.

The zoom action on the 17-55 is pretty nasty and very nasty for a
£700 lens. The build q on the 17-14 L is in a completely different
league. Its really a thing of beauty.

I say this as a 17-55 2.8 IS lens owner, not a 17-40 L lens owner, so
I am not being biased in any way.
Click to expand...
having tried both i agree with you 100%. For a +1000€ lens the 17-55 is very mediocre
--



http://www.pbase.com/jdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top