Decision between Canon EF 17-40 mm / F4L and Canon EF 35 mm / F2 USM

I have only the 14-40mm. And i like the lens, but i only use it for landscaping. The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM would maybe something to concider if you also want a fast 35mm. And... some report that the Sigma 18-35mm overall is better then the Canon EF 17-40 mm

You might consider the new 24mm f2.8 IS as a standard lens at an effective 38mm.  The 35mm IS is a little tighter angle of view.

Of the two you describe I'd get the 17-40mm L over the non-IS 35mm f2.

I have the 17-40 and it is a very nice lens, contrary to what some will try to tell you. I don't really miss IS in this focal length. Of course when I began shooting, everything was manual and the only IS to be had was a tripod or bean bag. You can get the 17-40 at a decent price compared to many others.

The 35 is a decent focal length for a crop. You have to decide whether you want a fixed focal length or if you would rather have a zoom. The 17-40 gives a very nice image on a crop lens, and it can be shot at 35mm.

You may want to consider a 17-40 and the 40mm f/2.8 STM. The 40mm is a great value and a good performer. I have both and was pleasantly surprised at the image quality from the 40.

gukejing wrote:

I own now following gear:

• Canon 500D body
• Canon EF-S 18-55 mm / f3.5-5.6
• Canon EF 50 mm / f1.8

the kit lens is rather useful to walk around and I start to practice to use some focal length like 35, 50, 85 after multiplying the crop factor to simulate the viewing angle and depth of field on full frame (not sure whether the method is correct).
I found the way works fine for me as some focal lengths are close to human view angle.

But the image quality of kit lens is not as good as a fixed focal length I have, the cheap 50 mm. Therefore I would like to improve my pictures quality by upgrading my gears by following either of two approaches:

• Use the luxury lens
• Use prime fixed focal length lens

Due to limited budget, I found two lens:

• 17-40 mm / f4L to cover the range of 18-55 mm
• 35 mm / f2 to cover 50 mm by considering the crop factor

Price would be slightly different, can anyone who ever tried two lens on APS-C body tell me the feeling or some picture examples to let me have some ideas which one to choose.

Your comment is welcomed to help me understand the pros / cons of the products.

Of course, the 3rd party lens are also welcomed as long as the price is not more than $800.

Thanks a lot.

Kejing

...for a crop DSLR, given the better options that are out there for the money (e.g. Sigma 17-50 / 2.8 OS, Canon 15-85 / 3.5-5.6 IS, etc.).

The 35 / 2 IS is excellent, however, but, were it me, I'd definitely pony up a bit more money and get the Sigma 18-35 / 1.8, unless IS was really important.

The hidden L aps-c standard zoom lens used to be the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.

The sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is outstanding.
I'd be tempted to buy a Sony or Pentax camera in order to benefit from in body stabilization in this case.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC will be fine as well.

I have the 35F2 IS and the 17-40. Both are good lenses, sharp, with very fast and accurate AF. I use the 35 more than the zoom, but I use them for different purposes.

The 35 is great at F2 for indoor low light shots, and will work under very low light. It gets lots of use as a general purpose lens. I often like to go light, and this lens is relatively light and compact. It works well for a birthday party or candid snaps.

The 17-40L has better color and contrast than the 18-55 IS. AF on the 17-40  is very fast and has proven accurate on my cameras. While I like my Sigma 50 macro lens, I am not willing to give up Canon AF on a camera body that doesn't have microadjust....especially when the risk of AF problems rear up. If size and weight don't matter to you, then other options can be considered.

It is hard to compare the zoom and prime lenses, as they are very different animals. I found that I added a lot of possibilities to my photography when I started using fast primes.