17-40 F4L or 17-55mm F2.8?

[3in1c]

i wanted to get the 17-55mm, but its too ex. i need it for lowlight event photography. basically indoor stuff. however, i'm considering the 50 f1.4 now as an alternative. it doesn't have the zoom capabilities but its aperture is irresistably good. what do you guys think? i was told that prime lens are sharper and faster in lowlights compared to zooms. is that true?

Yes. Test the USM before handing over money. I would recommend a zoom for event photography, why dont you consider 3rd party.

 

[chicklit]

I've switched from 17-40 to 17-55 and didn't regret it. More versatile lens than 17-40 and good IQ.

I even (considered) switch from 17-40 L to Tamron 17-50 (before Sigma 24-70) and until now have these 2 feelings
1. 17-40 L is one of the worst L Lens, no wonder so many peoples release their 17-40
2. 17-50 is affordable and cheaper f2.8 lens. Sure have limitation, but you pay peanut, you got monkey (pay banana to get chimps).

17-55 better than 17-50, but if price is double (or almost 3 times I think), you still not get 2-3x better IQ.
And with the release of 7D which APS-C, APS-C will survive longer...

just mumbling here :sweat:

 

[sinned79]

1. 17-40 L is one of the worst L Lens, no wonder so many peoples release their 17-40

i dun think i will use worst this word cos its still much better then other non L lens.

 

[hetfieldpaul]

I even (considered) switch from 17-40 L to Tamron 17-50 (before Sigma 24-70) and until now have these 2 feelings
1. 17-40 L is one of the worst L Lens, no wonder so many peoples release their 17-40
2. 17-50 is affordable and cheaper f2.8 lens. Sure have limitation, but you pay peanut, you got monkey (pay banana to get chimps).

17-55 better than 17-50, but if price is double (or almost 3 times I think), you still not get 2-3x better IQ.
And with the release of 7D which APS-C, APS-C will survive longer...

just mumbling here :sweat:

May i ask, why are all your lenses sigma? :bsmilie:

 

[dlee12]

i would prefer the 17-55mm...it's sharp....as for 17-40 felt that it's so so only on a crop body....not too sure....might be better suited in a ff camera.

 

[cancan7]

The 17-55 definitely trumps the 17-40 on a crop camera. The 17-40 was meant to be an ultra wide angle lens on a full frame camera. Since you're shooting indoor events, the extra f-stop, IS and 15mm range will be priceless.

 

[cavemonkey]

any idea if Tamron's 17-50mm rumour will become a fact? I tot of getting that lens.

 

[chicklit]

May i ask, why are all your lenses sigma? :bsmilie:

Not all sigma, currently still have 1 Canon kit lens (18-55) :bsmilie:
Simple reason is, I'm poisoned go to FF, so for all my setup, I try hard to buy only FF lens.
2nd reason is cheap(er) and still able to get the same result (at least for my taste).
Specific reason are, before purchase 24-70 f2.8, I read some comparation between Sigma 24-70 and Canon 24-70 L, and a chinese website stated Sigma beat Canon. Since the price cheaper, I give it a try, and never regret about it. And for 70-200, I got a cheap 2nd hand for 650 AUD, after sold my own 70-200 L because of bubble. (You know, when you inspect the glass, you see something like bubbles - 1st I thought fungus or coating loss, and CSC stated it as NORMAL, and refuse to do anything)