Canon 17-40mm f/4 v Canon 17-55mm f/2.8

City-Exile

Two lenses from Canon to compare.
The pros and cons, from your own experience.
Please don't post reviews from other websites, I want user feedback.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

I'm looking to use a lens for group shots at weddings, team shots at sport and also for the odd lanscape. Price isn't so much of a concern as getting the right lens.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is an outside option, but money is a consideration for anything over €1,000

dazftw

These are the only camera you can have on the EF-S lense!

300D/Digital Rebel
350D/Digital Rebel XT
400D/Digital Rebel XTi
450D/Digital Rebel XSi
500D/Digital Rebel T1i
1000D/Rebel XS
20D
20Da
30D
40D
50D

Just incase you have something else!
I have the 17 - 40 and I find its a great all rounder.. That and it being an L lense is a plus but I never notice the difference tbh.

PaulieC

haven't tried the 17-55 but the 17-40 is the default lens on my camera (a 50D). Very sharp, just about wide enough and quite small and light too...you can pick it up for around 450-500 quid brand new too. I got mine from Kerso for around that price

Fajitas!

Oh man, 17-55 2.8 IS - It's the crop sensor'd version of the 24-70. The only thing the 17-40's got better than it is overall build quality, but even then, the 17-55 ain't too shabby when it comes to that.

If you're looking at weddings, the 17-55 is miles above the 17-40 - Extra range, wider aperture, image stabilisation. You'd be mad to pick an f/4 lens over it.

The only reason I'd advise the 17-40 is if you'd be upgrading to a full frame sensor in the foreseeable future.

City-Exile

Thanks for the replies.
Fajitas, you're backing up what I had concluded myself.
My major concern was the weather sealing, which can be important when covering Irish sport.

The prices I've been quoted are:
17-55mm £739
17-40mm £549

Fajitas!

It's worth the extra £200 imo - I know it dosn't have weather sealing, but I reckon it wouldn't be seeing too much use on the pitch itself, with it being so short compared to the usual 300mm+ and it'll be more than ready to handle a drop of rain when the occasion arises - I know a 'tog that used one with no other lenses to shoot a well known festival - Rain and all.

City-Exile

Yeah, I like the range on it.
With regard to rain and sport, your gear tends to take a battering at sport, which it wouldn't take anywhere else.

Incidently, the 16-35mm II is priced around £1090
That's a fabulous lens, but I can't really afford it right now.

Borderfox

I use the 17-40L a lot and find its superb, it takes all the knocks that I give it and it has been out in all weathers and just keeps on working. I have used it on remotes/landscape/portrait/group basically anything.

I havent used the 17-55 f2.8 IS but have heard a lot of issues with dust which would put me off straight away due to my working conditions.

DotOrg

i got the 17-40 f4L in the US for €500

i'd say go for it espcially if you have any plans over ever getting a 5D or 1D

Cionn

Sorry for dragging up this old thread however I am having the same decision issues. I want a nice walk around lens for my 50D and I can not decide between the 17-40 and the 17-55.

City-Exile can you let me know what lens (if any ) you went for in the end ? and how you are finding it.

I have the 18-200 kit lens that came with the camera which is fine but I don't think it does the camera justice. I know the 17-55 won't work if i eventually go full frame. I have no intention of trading up at the moment, but then i had no intention of moving from my 400D until it was stolen.

I want a lens that is sharp, reasonably wide and good for wedding, family and a bit of action type photos.

My decision changes by the week last week I was in the 17 - 40 camp and this week I am vering towards the 17-55.

I want to commit to one in the next two weeks before I take some time off work as I would like to have time to play with the lens.

All opinions gratefully taken on board.

Ken

Pinarello

Cionn wrote: »

Sorry for dragging up this old thread however I am having the same decision issues. I want a nice walk around lens for my 50D and I can not decide between the 17-40 and the 17-55.

City-Exile can you let me know what lens (if any ) you went for in the end ? and how you are finding it.

I have the 18-200 kit lens that came with the camera which is fine but I don't think it does the camera justice. I know the 17-55 won't work if i eventually go full frame. I have no intention of trading up at the moment, but then i had no intention of moving from my 400D until it was stolen.

I want a lens that is sharp, reasonably wide and good for wedding, family and a bit of action type photos.

My decision changes by the week last week I was in the 17 - 40 camp and this week I am vering towards the 17-55.

I want to commit to one in the next two weeks before I take some time off work as I would like to have time to play with the lens.

All opinions gratefully taken on board.

Ken

Go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I have this lens and it's TACK SHARP!! I was recommended this lens over a 17-40mm f/4L last year by Matthew Cottom(Salesperson in B&H).He said to me it's equally as good as an L series lens.I didn't believe him but bought it anyway and boy was i glad i did when i saw the results.Believe me you won't be dissappointed...;)

Freddie59

I bought the 17-55 f/2.8 second-hand (€630) a month ago. Delighted with it. I've posted these on another thread, but here's a few shots taken with it (on a 40D):







Like you I was looking at the 17-40, but after reading umpteen reviews, the consensus was that the 17-55 is practically L quality, with some minor build issues.

Cionn

Thanks for the reply's I reckon that I will go for the 17-55 so I was leaning that way. From looking around I reckon I can get it landed for about €750. One final look nect week and I will push the button on it.