PDA

View Full Version : 17-55 2.8 IS vs. 17-40L vs. something else?


Please support NSOP by using our affilaites:
      Receive a FREE GIFT from Think Tank Photo

   Camera Gear Rentals   

PhatheadWRX
09-05-2008, 11:31 AM
I'm looking for something a little larger and sharper than my 18-55 IS. I'm looking very hard at the 17-55 2.8 IS, but I want to be sure to at least know all my options. Are there other lenses out there I should consider?

I wonder how sharpness and colors compare between the 17-55 and 17-40L. Anyone shoot with both?

The 2.8 and IS would be VERY nice.

Right, now I don't forsee myself going to FF, but if I ever did that is one negative to the 17-55.

The other big question is whether I should just stick with the 18-55 IS? The review of the 17-55 at the-digital-picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) has a comparison between it and the 18-55 IS. To me, there appears to be much much more detail in the 100% crops. But is it really worth the extra $1,000 :confused:

subimatt
09-05-2008, 11:36 AM
I really like my 17-55 but I do have some minor issues with it. On a crop the 17-55 is the way to go, although it is more expensive, but your paying for 2.8 and IS over the f4 and build. The 17-55 is close enough in price that if you did go FF, you could easily sell or trade for a 24-70 for little to no $$.

PhatheadWRX
09-05-2008, 11:47 AM
thanks matt, I was just reading back through your 17-55 vs. 24-70 thread.

Are sharpness and colors pretty with this family of 17 and 24 zooms? Should I base my decision on apature and IS?

subimatt
09-05-2008, 11:50 AM
thanks matt, I was just reading back through your 17-55 vs. 24-70 thread.

Are sharpness and colors pretty with this family of 17 and 24 zooms? Should I base my decision on apature and IS?

Id say so, the colors are better on the L for sure but low light the IS definitely is a huge plus to the 17. I prefer the 24-70 FL on crop bodies but thats just me. It comes to IS vs Build and slight IQ advantage.

I HATE the placement of the focus ring on the 17-55, thats my only gripe with it really.

jacobsen1
09-05-2008, 11:52 AM
to me the 17-40L should only be bought for a FF camera. Not because it's bad, but because there are better options out there that are crop specific. The top of that list would be the sigma 17-70 2.8~4.5 DC.

marcus.raw
09-05-2008, 11:53 AM
im on the same boat kind of. i had a hard time convincing my GF to replace her 18-55 IS. online research and explanations didnt do it. renting it from samys for 35$ for the weekend did tho.

i wouldnt get a 17-40 right now imo, thats better suited as a landscape lens for FF than a general purpose for crop.

PhatheadWRX
09-05-2008, 12:19 PM
The top of that list would be the sigma 17-70 2.8~4.5 DC.Do you know of good reviews to read up on that lens? At under $400 that really could be a steal.

jacobsen1
09-05-2008, 12:38 PM
look at any of scotts images from before he got a 5D. They're almost all with a 17-70.

s7khan
09-05-2008, 12:39 PM
So...selling that 18-55mm IS lens soon?

Stime187
09-05-2008, 12:56 PM
Sigma 17-70. Fantastic lens for the money. I only (grudgingly) sold it and bought the 17-40 L because I went full-frame. The 17-40 is twice the money, heavier, shorter in focal range, and slower. It's marginally better at best in terms of optics. I can't tell a difference.

And, like Ben said, virtually all of my older stuff (before January '08) was shot with it.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/stime187/mountain_flow_5915_web2.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/stime187/flowing_earth_5035_web.jpg

PhatheadWRX
09-05-2008, 12:58 PM
Scott, did you wish it had IS? Is it manageable indoors at 2.8?

Saad, I may be. My buddy Phil (clive on here) called first dibs, but I'll let you know if that falls through.

Stime187
09-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Scott, did you wish it had IS? Is it manageable indoors at 2.8?


It's not a constant 2.8, it switches over around 40mm to either 3.5 or f/4. But at any rate, I never had a problem. But I also don't shoot anything but snapshots indoors, so who knows.

As for IS, I couldn't have cared less.

ride5000
09-05-2008, 02:49 PM
i was REALLY torn between the sig 17-70 and the tamron 17-50. i liked scott's results with the 17-70, but i went with the latter because i do a lot of lower light/indoor stuff and the constant 2.8 aperture was more important than ultimate reach (plus i have an old 35-135 for that).

i got it used from b+h. i think it's a steal for only slightly more than the sigma, but if i was more of a landscape/outdoor guy i'd go sigma.

**** IS, that's what i say! just learn to be a sharpshooter...

thechickencow
09-05-2008, 02:56 PM
I love my 17-55 for what its worth, but it was big $.

PhatheadWRX
09-07-2008, 11:33 AM
Scott and Ken, how is the AF on the Sigma/Tamron? They both are interesting lenses that I'll keep in mine

I don't think I'd miss the gap between 55 and 70 (same as I currently have).

As Jay said in Matt's 17-55 Review post, I just think the 17-55 2.8 IS will be a perfect all purpose lens for most situations.

thechickencow
09-07-2008, 11:50 AM
I've used mine for a lot of different situations and the IS is a really nice addition. Here's some examples of the versatility:

Here's action:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2358378325_a4868f8981_o.jpg

portrait:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2376/2489028829_1f6f27ceae_o.jpg

here's a handheld night shot @f/3.2 and ISO 3200
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2461707893_3b53932416_o.jpg

landscape
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2210/2371409193_203ef4c5b1_o.jpg

PhatheadWRX
09-07-2008, 12:19 PM
I love that landscape shot Jay. After shooting the sunrise last weekend with my Sigma 10-20, I was left wanting more detail and sharpness. I figured the 17-55 could provide that in a variety of situations.

thechickencow
09-07-2008, 12:25 PM
Well for landscapes as others mentioned the sigma is probably just as good or at least worth the loss in detail for the $600 extra.