EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM vs. EF 17-40 f/40 L

www.thedigitalpicture.com, you can read the lenses' reviews from there, rent them if you can.

I read the reviews, they both seem like great lenses, but I'd like to get opinions from people with experience on the better choice.

If price is not an issue, get the 17-55. The 17-40 isn't designed as an APC-C walkaround. It's designed as a FF wide- to-superwide. It'll be unnecessarily heavy, and probably often too short when used on a crop-sensor camera. In image quality, the two are so close as to make no difference for most users.

And as said, with 2.8 and IS, the 17-55 is effectively 3 stops faster for most purposes.

If you think you will stick to cropped factor DSLR for a certain of period, then EF-S 17-55 has lot more to offer, f/2.8 , extra reach and IS. If you think you might upgrade to full frame, then EF17-40 is a nice piece of lens. You can't really compare both, because 17-55 has the advantage to stop down to match f/4 to 17-40 f/4. If both stop down to f/5.6, probably you won't see the difference.

Check this out: EF 17-40 f/4 L versus EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Go for the 17-55. You have more reach, it's faster, lighter, porperly sharper and if you happen to go FF sell it and buy a 24-70L. Only downside is the missing lenshood.

Jakob

The 17-40 f4L is NOT a heavy lens and is not particularly bulky (without the lens hood at least)

It is very well weather sealed and is exceptionally fast focusing.

I use it on a 400D where the sensor crop makes the most of the sweet spot, so even at 17 its sharp across the diagonal corners wide open.

I also use it on a film body (the 3) and will use it on the 5D mk2 (or 6D) when I get one.

IS is useful, but generally at longer focal lengths. With shorter focal lengths you can use longer shutter times without as much shake and the limiting factor actually becomes subject motion blur.

With the 17-40 being an EF mount lens you can use it on any EOS camera from the last 20 years, all current models and almost certainly all future models. The 17-55 2.8 is an EFS and is only compatable with current and recent consumer range canons. No bad thing if thats all you use now and all you will ever use, but for me it would be too much of a compromise, especially at such cost.

The supplied 18-55 gets better with every incarnation, for the cost it's never going to upset the L's but would you consider spending the money on expanding your overall range instead? A super wide like a 12-24? A tele like the 70-300 IS or 70-200L? A nice macro (the Sigma 70mm f2.8 DG is a corker) and a flashgun?

I had the same choice but had to accomadate a film body as well, getting the 17-40 was, for me the best choice.

For me it will be the 17-40 because I will not use it for low-light, I prefer the color and contrast when compared to the competition and I like the ease of use of it a lot. (Really smooth zoom/focus rings, no extending while zooming or focussing, weathersealing, smaller size & weight.)

For me lowlight is currently the 50/1.8 and will be the 50/1.4.

However, most photographers will be better served by the 17-55/IS because of the better focal range, greater aperture and the IS.

Regards, Matthijs.

Size/Weight 17-40: 83,5x96,8mm and 475g.

Size/Weight 17-55: 83,5x110,6mm (extends) and 645g.

A few comments on the 17-40 v 17-55 issue:

First, if you are not able to get decent to good images from the IS kit lens, you probably will not see much difference with the other lenses. The kit lens is capable of producing quite decent photographs, but in order to do so you'll need to get a handle on issues of technique with the camera and in post-processing... and without this you'll not be able to take advantage of the capabilities of the other lenses either. Your results won't look much different at all.

I shoot full frame and I'm a big fan of the 17-40mm f/4 L for certain types of work - especially for small aperture shooting of subjects including natural/urban landscapes, architecture, and so forth. That's not all it can do - I also use it for some types of street photography on my full frame camera.

I used it on a cropped sensor camera for a year or so before I switched to full frame. There it was a competent performer, often capable of excellent sharpness in the center of the frame and providing a very useful focal length range on the crop body. I never was fully pleased with the performance in the far corners of the frame, even when stopping down to f/8. (One could improve this a bit by stopping down to f/11, though more than that risks some diffraction blurring.) In many shots it was good enough, but with some subjects I'd end up having to crop a bit to lose the far corners. My verdict: for me the 17-40 is a fine lens though I find it more suited to FF than to cropped sensor cameras.

I have not used the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS, so my knowledge of it is based on an understanding of its feature set and some research into reviews and tests. If I were looking for a lens in this range and I had a cropped sensor body I would very definitely select the EFS lens over the 17-40 today. Its strengths include: wider focal length range, reported/tested excellent optical performance throughout the FL and aperture range, inclusion of f/2.8 maximum aperture, image- stabilization, and a reasonable cost for a lens with this feature set.

It is important to get past the perception that any L lens option is always a better choice than a non-L alternative. This is not always true. In terms of functional differences in this case, the only real "advantages" of the 17-40 over the 17-55 for your purposes are: slightly better build quality, a red ring, and the letter "L." (Thought experiment: Which would you choose if neither had the "L" designation?)

For a very illuminating comparison, go to slrgear.com and then click to their Canon zoom lens test list. Find these two lenses and open their test results in two windows or tabs. On each look for the small 3-D "blur chart" illustrations and click them so that they open in two windows, one for each lens. Then do a side by comparison at same/similar focal lengths and at the same apertures. I think that what you see here may help you in your decision.

Dan

If you aren't getting good pictures with the excellent 18-55mm IS kit lens that comes with the XSi you may not get good pictures with any other 'better' lens. I have both the 17-55mm 2.8 and the 17-40mm 4.0 L lenses. They are slightly sharper and with possibly a little better color and contrast rendition with weight being the tradeoff. I like the XSi with the kit lens for use on the street. The best camera is the one you will carry and have with you when the picture happens. Most good pictures happen 3-4 inches behind the lens with good technique, knowledge of light and composition, good post processing. JMNHO! Sample pic with XSi and 18-55mm IS kit lens.