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

[Vin]

Thanks to all who have responded.

I've bite the bullet and bought the 17-55 last week. Did a quick comparison with 17-40 on 40D.
- Better sharpness in 17-55 as per reviews. In fact at 17mm f/2.8 is even slightly sharper than my 17-40 17mm f/4.
- The 17-55 has vignetting at wide. Level is acceptable to me.
- Don't see obvious difference in terms of colours and contrast against 17-40.

My feeling is that on 4R prints, I won't be able to tell the difference in IQ of both lenses. But now have more versatility with 17-55.
Now need to get cir pl coz the one I'm using with 17-40 is not suitable. To thick for this EF-S lens

Happy New Year!

 

[WuffRuff]

Thanks to all who have responded.

I've bite the bullet and bought the 17-55 last week. Did a quick comparison with 17-40 on 40D.
- Better sharpness in 17-55 as per reviews. In fact at 17mm f/2.8 is even slightly sharper than my 17-40 17mm f/4.
- The 17-55 has vignetting at wide. Level is acceptable to me.
- Don't see obvious difference in terms of colours and contrast against 17-40.

My feeling is that on 4R prints, I won't be able to tell the difference in IQ of both lenses. But now have more versatility with 17-55.
Now need to get cir pl coz the one I'm using with 17-40 is not suitable. To thick for this EF-S lens

Happy New Year!

How much was it?
That time when i got my 17-40, I think this lens was new in the market and was very expensive... much more expensive than 17-40 so I got 17-40... I do think the extra 15mm would be very very nice... often found the 40mm not long enough... but then I got 50mm 1.8... but there's the trouble to change lens and to bring an extra lens out...

 

[Vin]

How much was it?
That time when i got my 17-40, I think this lens was new in the market and was very expensive... much more expensive than 17-40 so I got 17-40... I do think the extra 15mm would be very very nice... often found the 40mm not long enough... but then I got 50mm 1.8... but there's the trouble to change lens and to bring an extra lens out...

I've paid $1275 for it and had used my 17-40 for abt 3 yrs.

 

[ilihz]

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

Try using photoshop to replicate, IS and F2.8. I am sure it is possible...

And I am not sure what my contrast and color slider does in photoshop.

 

[fitzy]

You could replicate DOF of an F2.8 (it will take some effort though) but how you going to go about replicating IS:dunno:

 

[charlesleong]

maybe photoshop will include "add IS" in the new version haha.

 

[yehosaphat]

I too switched to 17-55 from my 17-40 after using it for 3 years... besides having the red ring, not really missing the L ever since the change ;p Usually, I would need to pair the 17-40 with my 580ex when shooting indoors, ever since the change, I have been shooting with the 17-55 w/o my flash! :bsmilie:

 

[yehosaphat]

Anyone knows how much is the hood?

 

[LancerCK]

Anyone knows how much is the hood?

About $55

 

[yehosaphat]

About $55

I suppose at CP?

 

[LancerCK]

I suppose at CP?

For me, I got it at AP (near 1 year ago), not sure about the price in CP. But should be around that range.

 

[Vin]

I too switched to 17-55 from my 17-40 after using it for 3 years... besides having the red ring, not really missing the L ever since the change ;p Usually, I would need to pair the 17-40 with my 580ex when shooting indoors, ever since the change, I have been shooting with the 17-55 w/o my flash! :bsmilie:

After using it for 3 wks, I too enjoying the fact that I could shoot without flash when I wanted or needed to which was not possible with 17-40. Once started shooting, the red ring and butter smooth zoom seems to be a thing of a past.

One thing I do need to get use to is that the minimum focusing distance of the 17-55 is further. Caught a few times positioning too near to the subject. Need to "recalibrate" myself :bsmilie:

Anyone knows how much is the hood?

Got mine from Tagotech. Cheaper and it works.
http://store.tagotech.com/product_info.php?cPath=47&products_id=108

 

[shunzi]

About $55

canon lens hood always sell so ex

 

[metalgear]

Here's an example of the 17-40 on a 1DmkIII

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/688320/206

see post #5

I think there were some bad copies. but here is an excellent shot in difficult lighting (whiteout!) with great colours/contrast (no flare).

not saying its the best lens out there, but its a great lens when you have to stretch the limits. also probably will see more when printed A4 and above with respectable printers. Monitors can't provide a wider gamut of colours than print.

 

[itsygo]

Hi, anyone have the orginal hood for 17-55mm from canon? Need to know the difference between Tagotech hood that bro Vin intro.
The Tagotech website claim that their hood petals are bigger to suit a 1.6x crop body.

Btw CP selling $49 for the orginal hood but currently out of stock.

 

[charlesleong]

Here's an example of the 17-40 on a 1DmkIII

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/688320/206

see post #5

I think there were some bad copies. but here is an excellent shot in difficult lighting (whiteout!) with great colours/contrast (no flare).

not saying its the best lens out there, but its a great lens when you have to stretch the limits. also probably will see more when printed A4 and above with respectable printers. Monitors can't provide a wider gamut of colours than print.

in fairness, on a 1Dx or 1Dsx or 5Dx there is only 17-40 or 16-35 to choose if you want a canon UWA zoom.

the debate here i think is 17-40 vs 17-55 on a APS-C. both are decent lenses, but my take is that the f2.8, IS and 40-55 range win it for the 17-55.

 

[yehosaphat]

in fairness, on a 1Dx or 1Dsx or 5Dx there is only 17-40 or 16-35 to choose if you want a canon UWA zoom.

the debate here i think is 17-40 vs 17-55 on a APS-C. both are decent lenses, but my take is that the f2.8, IS and 40-55 range win it for the 17-55.

agreed

 

[Vin]

the debate here i think is 17-40 vs 17-55 on a APS-C.

Thanks!

 

[mynextday]

I wonder whats the push for one person to switch from a crop to full frame?

higher ISO needs? Wider angel view?
or crop frame has lower pic quality?

 

[yehosaphat]

better noise control!