Choice of 17-55 f2.8 IS or 17-40 f4L for 40D

[Frijj]

Whether the pic is blur or not because the subject move or not is another issue altogether.
17-55 @ f2.8 with IS vs 17-40 @ f4 is a 4 stop advantage.
This is a statement not an opinion.
I see many 17-40s sold as owners upgrade to 17-55.
I seldom see 17-55s sold because their owner upgrading to 17-40: "Oh no IS and 1 stop slower never mind...when I take indoor shots the subject always move so my shots always blur anyway."
Duh.

It's a up to 4 stop advantage. You get 1 stop more of light for sure. The 3 stop advantage from IS really depends on the user.

The biggest advantage I see is the 1 stop more you get that will allow you to have a faster shutter speed in low light conditions at the same ISO setting (this'll help with capturing motion).

Get the 17-55 if you only have 1.6x crop DSLR. You really can't beat the feeling of f/2.8 or faster lenses.

 

[Kongo]

The link to a recent similar posting:

http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=294392

 

[calebk]

Whether the pic is blur or not because the subject move or not is another issue altogether.
17-55 @ f2.8 with IS vs 17-40 @ f4 is a 4 stop advantage.
This is a statement not an opinion.
I see many 17-40s sold as owners upgrade to 17-55.
I seldom see 17-55s sold because their owner upgrading to 17-40: "Oh no IS and 1 stop slower never mind...when I take indoor shots the subject always move so my shots always blur anyway."
Duh.

In terms of light difference, the EF-S 17-55 and the 17-40L are only a stop apart. This is the only thing that is for sure - not 4 stops. When it come to freezing motion, IS will not help (I think you already know this); only that one stop advantage (and perhaps using a Speedlite on 2nd curtain sync - this only helps in some situations) will come in handy in freezing motion.

The remaining three stops are user-dependent, as Frijj already mentioned. In the hands of a user with poor technique, IS can even be rendered useless.

 

[browncow]

Fair enough....the 3 stop advantage from the IS is dependent on the user, so it's up to a 4 stop advantage, and of course IS doesn't help with subject movement.
I was just responding to the person who suggested that you don't need extra advantage in indoor low light situations because the photo you take is going to be blur anyway because the subject will move anyway.
Anyways, nothing personal. I do miss the better build and the red ring of my 17-40, but other than that I most definitely prefer the versatility of the 17-55.
You mileage may vary.

 

[zhikang]

17-55 for the win. an extra stop of 'brightness' always comes in handy! PLUS IS. =D Optics are v close to, if not. L quality as well for the 17-55

 

[CreaXion]

Although I have not used the 17 - 55, my guess that the IQ difference between 17 - 40 and 17-55 is not very visible to the normal eye. Only photographers like us will nitpick. If 17 -55 was cheaper like now, I would get it straight.

 

[StrifeYun]

wah .. this question seem to pop up frequently ...., just get the 17-55 IS... as u are getting a 1.6 crop with this .... i do not think u will be upgrading so soon right.

since u are going to spend about $1000 for the lens, just go for the IS USM one,

I used to have a tamron 17-50 f2.8... i find the IS gave me sharper images and also allowed me to take night scenery shots at a slower shutter speed, which i am very happy about. every single edge helps if you have a budget.

but if u want to save. I'd recommend you get the tamron

if i only had a FF cam *dreaming .. i would just get the 24-105 f4 IS haha as a walk around lens .. OT abit heee ...

 

[ericmar]

Side topic a bit. For those who bought the 17-40mm F4L, how much is the filter? What brand is recommended?

Thanks.

 

[Kensuke]

B+W 77mm MRC :thumbsup:

 

[CreaXion]

B+W 77mm MRC :thumbsup:

I am using this filter. However, Hoya came up a with a new filter for digital cams. Cheaper than the B & W. Suppose to reduce flares and other stuff. Mount it on my tamron and produce quite good results. Got it from TCW. U can try it.

 

[ericmar]

I am using this filter. However, Hoya came up a with a new filter for digital cams. Cheaper than the B & W. Suppose to reduce flares and other stuff. Mount it on my tamron and produce quite good results. Got it from TCW. U can try it.

How much and when did you buy yours?

 

[Halfmoon]

I am using this filter. However, Hoya came up a with a new filter for digital cams. Cheaper than the B & W. Suppose to reduce flares and other stuff. Mount it on my tamron and produce quite good results. Got it from TCW. U can try it.

Hi CreaXion

May I know how much is the filter??

What is the name of the filter??? As there are quite a few filter out there...

Thank you.

 

[CreaXion]

How much and when did you buy yours?

Recently. It cost $75 if I remember correctly. Pro 1 Digital Filter

 

[terence19]

B + W Filters.

Go to John 3:16 at Funan.

EFS 17-55 for sure.

Yeah i agree with most post here that you won't be upgrading anytime soon to 5D or FF so why not get the 17-55 2.8. Not every time get a L lens.

It is a great lens i used 97% all the time.

 

[jasperng]

i own 17-55 2.8 IS
i recommend this lens for 40D (1.6 crop same as my 400D)
you can refer to my link below for foto from this lens.

17-40 4 only for full frame body wide angle. (same as 10-22 for 1.6 crop body) (but i will get 24-105 4 instead)

 

[dan_1337]

i would say 17-55...unless you're an L whore. but then if u were an L whore, u'd go all out and get the 16-35mkII =D

if i had my time again, i would have bought the 17-55 as my first lens.

 

[wanzw]

the only reason i will sell/trade my 17-55 away is when i upgrade to a full frame or 1 series body. but then even so i will still find an excuse to keep a 2nd body

 

[Pinoy]

How about EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Price diff of only +- $50. :think: :sweatsm:

I'm torn between these 2. :bsmilie:

:Later,

 

[solasido]

go for 17-55..
the f2.8 will come in handy..

buy a second copy so that when you sell it you will likely lose a bit only as compared to buy a new one.

How about EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM vs EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Price diff of only +- $50. :think: :sweatsm:

I'm torn between these 2. :bsmilie:

:Later,

 

[browncow]

That's a v different question - the diff between those 2 lenses is more of range.
Personally I feel 24-105 is not wide enough for 1.6 crop....I feel it's much better with a FF camera. In future when I go FF I can see myself v happy with a 24-105. =)
For a 1.6 crop camera, I feel the 17-55 is more suitable.