L series lenses

L series = better contrast, color, bokeh, build quality and image quality. Less lens flare. The 24-70L is my workhorse wedding lens on a full frame 1Ds3 and 1.3 crop 1D3. The 50mm 1.2 that you mention IS an "L" lens.

EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS is better than some "L" lenses. It's not "L" lens because it's EF-s and won't fit full frame bodies. It's also not sealed but it's as good as "L" lenses and even better than some of them. EF 28-70/2.8 is the old L lens and it was replaced by 24-70/2.8 - I think that neither is going to be wide enough on 1,6x sensor camera. Instead of 17-55 and 50/1.2 I'd buy 17-55 and something longer, e.g. one of 70-200 lenses.

It is a hard lesson to learn.

You have to use a few L lenses to see the difference. You won't get it on just one picture.

Forget the camera body - invest in the lens - invest in the glass!

I'm a convert!

You must have a different opinion about what "much better" and "sufficiently superior" actually means.

Of course, those comparison as a generalisation are completely worthless. If you compare 2 descret lenses, like the EFS17-55 IS and the EF 28-70L, you might or might not find optical differences. The L is certainly better build. But the most important thing is, the latter will not give you any wide, so the comparison is only of limited use ... at least if you need wide.

-- "L series = better contrast, color, bokeh, build quality and image quality."

And for statements like this ... in this general form ... nonsense.

Just take a lens like the EF 85/1.8 USM ... a non-L by the way ... there is hardly any L lens that beats it ... and of course EF 85/1.2L they'll all shout ... just compare AF-speed.

Compare two lenses with an intended use in mind makes sense. Just blindly buying lenses because they have an L-tag doesn't.

I've read quite a few reviews that say the 17-55/2.8 IS has equal or better image quality than the 24-70 2.8 L (and the 24-105 L), Also, many folks on these forums who have both lenses seem to agree. Yet many people still make the statement that one or both of these L lenses have better image quality than the 17-55. Most of these statements seem to be based on the fact that an "L" lens is automatically superior to an non "L" lens. Are there any tests or reviews that actually back the statement that either of these Ls have better IQ than the 17-55,, 2.8 ?

G`day Melinda, did you read this review

(link)

Now look at their size, then go to the canon site and look at the specs, take in their dimemtions and weight, then ask yourself, can I hold that weight, body lens and flash, for even just a short 3~4 hour event?, I suggest do yourself a favour and go to a shop and hold them, make sure as well hold one handed, believe me there are times you`ll have to. The 24 70 is a lovely lens on FF, the 17 55 is like a FOV 28 80 on x1.6, a better tool IMO :) I use 24 70 but have done many wedding with tamron 17 50 as I don`t use IS but YMMV..

my 85 f 1.8 is a very good lens, but to say that hardly any L lens beats it is just plain wrong. My 135 will run circles around it, my 70-200 L f/2.8 non is, will match it and have better IQ, the 85 L, no comparison to the two, the 85 f/1.8 is a very good lens, but there is a difference between L lens and the others, besides weather sealing. Having stated the above for the price difference the 85 f/1.8 is a very good buy. The L lens keep their value if you ever decide to sell them, I have only sold one that is the 17-40 L as the wide primes are better then zoom especially in the wide range because of the distortion.

I have a 40D and use bought the 17-55/2.8 recently and I really notice a difference to other lenses I have used. It is very sharp. The only other lens I have that when I look at my shots and think, "damn, that looks good", is the 70-200 2.8L It seems to be L quality optics but marketing does not want to have an L for anything other than a full frame sensor.

Shawn

Back to yout original question: The 17-40L is a very good lens, but (assuming yo use a APS-C camera) the 17-55 is the better choice for weddings. It is at least equally sharp and its zoom range is much more useful for this purpose. It is more adequate for head and shoulders portraits and still wide enough for group shots.. The f 2.8 will give you more background blur if needed. For more blur and reach I would add in a 85mm prime.