Anyone ditch EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and

[Vin]

happy with it?

Forgot to add. It's for those who is staying on with cropped sensors.

Please don't discuss about the consideration into upgrading to FF. There are threads discussing on this.

Please share on IQ, handling, usability, focusing performance, IS performance and anything that is negative (besides losing the L status) switching over to EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

Thank you.

 

[ray_stinger]

When I was on crop, I feel that the 17-55mm is a much better choice.

 

[Raied]

on 1.6x i think the 17-40 is a total wtf choice unless planning to upgrade to different format

 

[diver-hloc]

I just did...... miss the L lens build and smooth like butter zoom ring..... :sweat:

But prefer the IS and f2.8 on the 17-55mm :thumbsup:

 

[charlesleong]

IMO, anyone who DID swap a 17-40 for a 17-55 is quite silly.

Mind you, not silly to swap a L for a L-equivalent.

Not silly to go for a better glass, larger aperture, longer reach and IS

Silly to have bought the 17-40 in the first place. The 17-55 is a clearly superior glass on a crop body.

For me i got the 17-55 first, then the 17-40 after i bought my 5D

 

[JohnnyW]

Hi guys,

On this Topic, I bought the 17-40 instead of 17-55 as I am sure I will be upgrading to FF in the near future.

I believe both are great lenses. We just have to make it do its best and produce images that we want to protray.
Having said that, do enjoy any of the two lenses or both lenses that you own regarding this topic.

Cheers!

 

[Vin]

I just did...... miss the L smooth like butter zoom ring..... :sweat:

Couldn't agree more.

 

[diver-hloc]

IMO, anyone who DID swap a 17-40 for a 17-55 is quite silly.

Mind you, not silly to swap a L for a L-equivalent.

Not silly to go for a better glass, larger aperture, longer reach and IS

Silly to have bought the 17-40 in the first place. The 17-55 is a clearly superior glass on a crop body.

For me i got the 17-55 first, then the 17-40 after i bought my 5D

I brought the L lens 1st because it's cheaper than the 17-55mm..... and I thought of going FF in the near future. But have since given up after seeing how $$$ the new 5D MkII is.

And if ever Canon were to release a much cheaper version of a FF camera.... to buy back another 17-40mm would still be affordable.... just get 2nd hand set lor :bsmilie:

 

[Prince]

on 1.6x i think the 17-40 is a total wtf choice unless planning to upgrade to different format

I totally agree with you dude! Its really wtf!

 

[Prince]

I brought the L lens 1st because it's cheaper than the 17-55mm..... and I thought of going FF in the near future. But have since given up after seeing how $$$ the new 5D MkII is.

And if ever Canon were to release a much cheaper version of a FF camera.... to buy back another 17-40mm would still be affordable.... just get 2nd hand set lor :bsmilie:

Just get the MkI! Its really good enough!

 

[diver-hloc]

Just get the MkI! Its really good enough!

I have no doubt the 5D is good....

But except for the Full Frame sensor and really good noise control in high ISO..... A 40D could shoot faster and still have DIGI 3, LiveView, dust cleaning system.... and at least 1K++ cheaper..... and a mirror that doesn't fall off :bsmilie:

 

[Vin]

Silly to have bought the 17-40 in the first place. The 17-55 is a clearly superior glass on a crop body.

17-55 was not born when I got the 17-40 and 16-35 is too ex. No chance to be silly :bsmilie:

 

[tjhan]

I'm feeling the itch for a 17-55 as well, but I think it'll make obsolete my 50 mm f1.4. Have seen many who sell off their 50 f1.4s after getting this. Should I do it?

 

[diver-hloc]

I'm feeling the itch for a 17-55 as well, but I think it'll make obsolete my 50 mm f1.4. Have seen many who sell off their 50 f1.4s after getting this. Should I do it?

Err.... why would 17-55mm f2.8 make your 50mm f1.4 obsolete :think:

50mm f1.4 is mainly use as a protrait lens.... it could be use in low light or even a walkabout lens.... but you can't zoom or even shoot group of people without stepping back 5-10 metres.

IMHO, both lens is difference and each have its use. Cause I'm keeping my 50mm f1.4 :thumbsup: :bsmilie:

 

[evilorgi]

i once had this dilemma too, after testing both lens @ indoor events, i conclude that 17-55 is clearly superior on a cropped body.

17-40's zoom and focus ring is definitely unrivalled, better than 17-55. however in indoor shoots, 40mm tends to be to wide for me to shoot my subject. plus it's f/4 hence it's slower than 17-55.

plus the IS on 17-55 is marvelous if lets say the conditions wasn't bright enough.

the only set back is that 17-55 is way too ex and not worth it for ppl whom intend to upgrade to a FF in the near future.

 

[tjhan]

Err.... why would 17-55mm f2.8 make your 50mm f1.4 obsolete :think:

50mm f1.4 is mainly use as a protrait lens.... it could be use in low light or even a walkabout lens.... but you can't zoom or even shoot group of people without stepping back 5-10 metres.

IMHO, both lens is difference and each have its use. Cause I'm keeping my 50mm f1.4 :thumbsup: :bsmilie:

Of course the two lenses are differnt, but the difference is not that much. I never use f1.4 anyway since I have a 580. I fear I will end up not using the 50mm much anymore and so might as well sell.

 

[aungzawwin]

happy to choose 17-55 IS over 17-40L. longer reach, IS, and f2.8:thumbsup:
no need to worry coz no idea yet to go for a FF in near future
and it seems that 17-55 shows less CA than 17-40 in bright light..

 

[varf]

on 1.6x i think the 17-40 is a total wtf choice unless planning to upgrade to different format

when i purchased my 17-40 the 17-55/2.8 did not exist yet. i swapped over to the 17-55 soon after its launch (when its price was still 'wtf' high) and have not been disappointed by the output.

 

[metalgear]

should have one more option:

"have 17-40L and never considered 17-55"
​

contrast and colour is something that is almost impossible to replicate in photoshop. Canon L lenses, along with zeiss and leicas, are fantastic when shot to its full strength.

there are much better examples but this is my humble tourist shot on a 40D

 

[Vin]

should have one more option:

"have 17-40L and never considered 17-55"
​

My intent was to know opinions of people who had really use and experience (not over some shop counter) both lenses. Thanks for the suggestion anyhow. ​