Canon New 17-55/F2.8 IS USM VS 17-40/F4 L?

[kenrai]

Whenever the light falls, the 17-40 sleeps in my bag. Now the 17-55 stays on most of the time, regardless of lighting unless the darkest situation when i will whip out my 30mm f1.4.

Hi, wouldn't f/2.8 + IS perform almost similarly to f1.4 at very low light conditions? Like to learn from your experienes. Thks.

 

[jasonpgc]

The subsequent clarification on your unique requirements (i.e. sharpness is not important to you, always shoot at f8 or above with a tripod on landscape subjects under good lighting conditions and the need for smaller prints only) had made the earlier statements more comprehensible for me. Cheers!

Did I mention small prints? I only print my stuff at 300 dpi to A4 size. If that is considered small to you.

One of the reason why some people still goes for f2.8 or expensive zoom lens is because the distortion correction at each focal length and color contrast is better on the higher end zoom lens.

With digital files, proper sharping in Photoshop will compensate for slight differences in sharpness. But correcting distortion and other design flaws will take more time and effort in comparison.

Thanks for replying. Cheers!

 

[thw]

With digital files, proper sharping in Photoshop will compensate for slight differences in sharpness. But correcting distortion and other design flaws will take more time and effort in comparison.
Thanks for replying. Cheers!

Agree with you about Photoshop compensating for slight differences in sharpness.

But correcting for distortion and vignetting only takes 1 minute. Ever used PTLens?

You're welcome.

 

[_espn_]

Just get the 17-40L, no need to think too much...

 

[DiehardCanonUser]

Dun know about the 17-40L, but I just got the 17-55 IS.

This taken late in the evening ~6pm, indoors with low light. EXIF: 1/30 f2.8 at 43mm, ISO 800, IS on, no flash. Image is totally unedited. I was pretty impressed.

 

[TYM76]

Just get the 17-40L, no need to think too much...

Think more carefully and get the 17-55 IS 2.8

 

[chunky228]

Think more carefully and get the 17-55 IS 2.8

Yoke, thanks. I should be getting the 17-55 IS weighing the adv it has. Thanks, all.

 

[hwchoy]

how does the 17-55 compare with the L-range in terms of colour richness?

 

[thw]

how does the 17-55 compare with the L-range in terms of colour richness?

One word: Superb. :bsmilie:

 

[Danntbt]

Dun know about the 17-40L, but I just got the 17-55 IS.

This taken late in the evening ~6pm, indoors with low light. EXIF: 1/30 f2.8 at 43mm, ISO 800, IS on, no flash. Image is totally unedited. I was pretty impressed.

WOW.....made up my mind..........

 

[jamestan]

My Thoughts (and somebody pls back me up / correct me if I am wrong)

1. If I were to start on the canon system (30D), I should be getting the 17-55 lens (true / false)
2. EF-S is for 1.6 crop cameras (like 30D and 350D). Can the older 20D / 300D and the even older D30 / D60 use this lens?
3. Am I correct to say the EF-S lenses are like the DX lenses of the Nikon system?

Please don't flame me hor. I am trying to learn about the Canon system and the "decision day" (to switch or not) will be after 14th July, when I rent a Canon 30D (plus hopefully, the 17-55) to try out.

 

[solarii]

1. If I were to start on the canon system (30D), I should be getting the 17-55 lens (true / false)

True. Excellent choice!

To those who are more familiar with my stand on such issues, I'm cutting a long story short. If you want to give the traditional and "correct" common sense answer, go ahead. I think I'll be condescending from now on!

2. EF-S is for 1.6 crop cameras (like 30D and 350D). Can the older 20D / 300D and the even older D30 / D60 use this lens?

20D/300D Yes
D30/D60 No

3. Am I correct to say the EF-S lenses are like the DX lenses of the Nikon system?

Yes you can look at it this way, though I don't encourage and never totally agree with cross system comparisions of this sort.

 

[jamestan]

1. If I were to start on the canon system (30D), I should be getting the 17-55 lens (true / false)

True. Excellent choice!

To those who are more familiar with my stand on such issues, I'm cutting a long story short. If you want to give the traditional and "correct" common sense answer, go ahead. I think I'll be condescending from now on!

2. EF-S is for 1.6 crop cameras (like 30D and 350D). Can the older 20D / 300D and the even older D30 / D60 use this lens?

20D/300D Yes
D30/D60 No

3. Am I correct to say the EF-S lenses are like the DX lenses of the Nikon system?

Yes you can look at it this way, though I don't encourage and never totally agree with cross system comparisions of this sort.

Thanks... As mentioned, "decision day" will be on the 14th July weekend... When I test out a rented set of 30D (and hopefully a 17-55 lens to go along).

 

[solarii]

Thanks... As mentioned, "decision day" will be on the 14th July weekend... When I test out a rented set of 30D (and hopefully a 17-55 lens to go along).

14 July? Bastille Day! National Holiday.

 

[kiwi2]

Users of the 17-55IS:

Juz curious...

Apart from the vignetting (yes yes, an overused word these days isn't it?! :bsmilie: ), how's the flare? Read from some American Canon website it's fairly prone to flare. Any comments?

Tnx!

 

[thw]

Apart from the vignetting (yes yes, an overused word these days isn't it?! :bsmilie: ), how's the flare? Read from some American Canon website it's fairly prone to flare. Any comments?
Tnx!

Unfortunately, that's true. :cry: Worse than the 'lowly' 17-85 IS. Nowhere as good as the 10-22 or 17-40. If you have bright light source (including artificial lighting) in your photo and you don't have a hood, be prepared for some flaring.

 

[F5user]

hiya... if you never intend to move up to anything beyond a 30d, or its future counterparts, then the 17-55 is sufficient.



Personally i'd snatch the 17-40 anytime.

why?

1. I trash/use my equipment professionally,
2. I shoot film/FF as often as digital.
3. i have a 20d/30d, and the 17-55 would be an impediment as it's only usable on those bodies (not fogetting the rebel xt.)
4. Contrast
5. Flair control


Ok, i know it's a 2.8, but hey... at the wide end, i wouldn't shoot wide open, especially if i have to print most of my shots large.

Yeah, we all know how wonderful IS is... but as Canon will be canon, they'll make you pay for it.

Hence if you currently have an ef-s equipped body with no intention to upgrade (yet), then buy the 17-55. Great lens, slightly pricey, but... that's Canon's style with their "new" stuff...

Hope this helps

regards.

 

[sgphoto]

Wait for FF price to drop buy the 17-40 to keep? Buy the 17-55 and get great photos NOW, not in 2-3 time when "I can afford FF" or when "1Ds Mk II becomes $5K' etc. Buy it then sell next time to those people still using crop cams eg 450D or 40D. I still see people selling "old" 17-85 around , dont worry too much about re-sale value. Think more of the pictures you can make with the lens NOW.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[_espn_]

My Thoughts (and somebody pls back me up / correct me if I am wrong)

1. If I were to start on the canon system (30D), I should be getting the 17-55 lens (true / false)
2. EF-S is for 1.6 crop cameras (like 30D and 350D). Can the older 20D / 300D and the even older D30 / D60 use this lens?
3. Am I correct to say the EF-S lenses are like the DX lenses of the Nikon system?

Please don't flame me hor. I am trying to learn about the Canon system and the "decision day" (to switch or not) will be after 14th July, when I rent a Canon 30D (plus hopefully, the 17-55) to try out.

1) No, get 17-40L

2) D60 and below cannot use EF-S, 1D series also cannot use EF-S

3) Yes. Just that it cannot be used on the 1D series whereby the DX of the Nikon system can be used on all dSLRs.

 

[CreaXion]

Dun know about the 17-40L, but I just got the 17-55 IS.

This taken late in the evening ~6pm, indoors with low light. EXIF: 1/30 f2.8 at 43mm, ISO 800, IS on, no flash. Image is totally unedited. I was pretty impressed.

My screen is not calibrated. But if I am seeing correctly from my screen, I do not remember seeing anything that sharp on my F4L on my 30D turned to max sharpness. Either I sux in my skill or the lens is really gd. Like almost make me regret buying the F4L.

The sharpness of it is like seeing my Nikon images again. Miss the sharpness on Nikon images. If not for the weaker noise control in comparison with Canon, I would have stick to Nikon.