Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=28643485&changemode=1&forum=1...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
New Option in the 17-40 vs 17-55 debate?: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal 2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
Thanks for any thoughts.
|
|
So it really isn't fair to compare that lens to the 17-40 or the 17-55 EFS.
I own one "L" lens that I use on my 30D, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
All I can say is that I am SOLD on L glass.
I will save pennies, dimes, nickels and think often about robbing my retirement fund to come up with the funds to purchase more L glass.
Of course my wife has a different view, but I try to tell her that an L addiction is better than a girlfriend!
Well, I do love my 85mm f/1.8 which is not L glass, and for portraits is a great lens.
I also have the 17-85mm and I would get rid of it in a heartbeat to feed my interest in L glass.
Having said that I am going to swear on a Bible that it is on "L' from here on in.
If it's worth buying for the long haul, buy the L glass.
I'm sure that the 24-105 is a fantastic lens;
However I am also very interested in buying f/2.8 glass as well as I do a lot of indoor and prefer natural lighting.
How about the 16-36 f/2.8L as an alternative?
Good luck with your addiction.
|
|
I had similar lenses and filled the gap with a 24-70 f/2.8L USM lens.
I love it. I also have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM so this fit in quite nicely.
Something to consider.
|
|
Before upgrading to the 5D, I used the 10-22, 24-105 and 70-300 combo on my 30D.
The 24-105 was a great walkaround on the crop, with the addition of the 10-22 for wide angle.
If you're not serious about getting the 10-22, then I would stick with the 17-55 for the 2.8.
Yes, the 17-40 is a great lens, and I use it on my 5D, but for the crop, the 17-55 was my choice.
Jo
|
|
The 17-40 is not that "fast" (f4), it doesn't have IS, and it would give you a rather tame 27-64mm equivalent focal range on your camera (i.e.
It's not that wide and not that long - for most people, 24mm is the start of 'proper' wide angle).
The 17-40 is great value for a super-wide lens on a FF camera, but on a 1.6X there are MUCH better options for a "walkaround" lens.
Canon's 17-55 f2.8 EF-S lens is BY FAR the best all-round lens for non-FF SLRs.
It has IS *and* it has a max aperture of f2.8.
AND it is as sharp as you are going to get in a zoom lens.
AND it gives a more useful equivalent focal range of 27-88mm on your crop SLR.
So one option for a "walkaround" system based on a 40D, which also covers 24mm, is as follows:
40D: $940
10-22: $700
17-55: $1000
Total: $2640
However, for £2700 you could get a 5D plus a 24-105L instead!
:)
Quote: :
>
I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
>
>
Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm
>
Shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future
>
I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go
>
Ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a
>
Not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal
>
2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more
>
Advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
>
>
Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>
>
>
|
|
If I had to start from scratch now, say from a fire or theft, and I was going to get the 40D for sure, I would get the 10-22+24-105.
What a great combo.
Just add the 100-400 and you're all set!!
|
|
I prefer some overlap when it comes to zoom lenses.
The 10-22 + 17-55 is the closest thing to match the 16-35 + 24-70 in the EF lens lineup.
Besides, I find that the 17-55 would be more versatile on a crop than a 24-105 simply because it's wider and I prefer having more room in the wide end than in the long end.
It's a preference.
|
|
Hmmmm... it took me a while, too.
After deciding to continue with the APS-C camera line, I settled on the 17-55/2.8 IS and the 24-105/4.0 IS L (as well as some bright primes).
I usually walk the streets with the 24-105, but put on the 17-55 for crowds, plazas, or structures.
Before then, at the wide end, I had progressed through the Tokina 12-24/4.0 and Canon 17-40/4.0 L.
The Tokina was relegated to novelty status after a time, and the 17-40 was a bit short and not bright enough for my indoor needs.
At the longer end, I had gone through the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and 70-200/4.0.
I miss the 70-200, however, and plan to get one again.
The 17-55/24-105/70-200 overlap nicely, and all produce great results.
--
Rick -Z-
http://www.zotz.com
|
|
Quote: :
> I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
>
>
Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm
>
Shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future
>
I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go
>
Ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a
>
Not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal
>
2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more
>
Advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
>
>
Thanks for any thoughts.
>
I'm not sure I can help answer, but I can add some more feedback.
I've had the 17-85 for 18mths and have never found it to be what I call "wide angle".
I bought the 10-22 6mths ago and haven't looked back...
I know when I want a shot to "look wide" and I use 10-15mm and for the rest of my shots I want a more normal focal length.
As such, I never use the 17-85 below about 24mm (particularly since it has shocking distortion) and I've been looking at the 24-70/2.8 or the 24-105/4 as a replacement.
The decision I'm struggling with now is do I accept the weight of the 24-70 (which matches nicely with my 70-200/2.8IS) or do I go for the better range of the 24-105 and accept the possible loss of focus accuracy since it's f4 and the f2.8 high precision focus sensor can't be used?
I know some people will find 24mm not wide enough and that's great, but for me I either want "really wide" or "normal"...
So the 15-25mm range just doesn't really offer me that much.
J
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
>
Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm
>
Shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future
>
I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go
>
Ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a
>
Not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal
>
2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more
>
Advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
The 17-40L is a limited-range wide angle lens for FF cameras (the fact that the range is limited is not a problem for normal wide-angle use).
It is a bit slow and not stabilised (wide angle lenses do not that).
The 17-55 f2.8 IS is for crop cameras only, hence the intended use angle of view is not as wide as that of the 17-40L on FF.
The range is standard, the lens is faster and stabilised.
It will give you more usable low-light shots and better DOF control.
It is a no brainer.
Unless you really plan to go to FF soon (keep in mind the economics and do not assume that FF sensors will become "cheap" -- the amount of expensive silicon wafer will remain constant, no matter how many pixels they cram on it -- but from your post it seems that you already made your decision), the 17-55 is the lens for a crop sensor camera.
Of course it is also a big, heavy lens, but I have no problem on it.
It feels very well balanced on a 40D.
The 24-105 f4 IS L is a nice lens.
I could borrow it from a relative.
It is more solid than the 17-55 f2.8 IS, but it is a bit slow and again it is designed for FF, where the range is great and it complements the 17-40 L nicely.
The range on crop cameras is a bit limited on the wide-end, but it goes to moderate tele lengths.
Dust and moisture proof when on the camera, but without rear gasket, so dust can still enter from the back.
It has less resolution than the 17-55 so on a 40D it could perform not as well.
OTOH, on FF it shines.
Apart form the 10-22, I would consider the Tokina 11-16.
It is faster, has less distorsion and just a tad more CA than the canon ef-s 10-22.
The build quality is amazing (whereas the 10-22 feels like the 17-55 and the 17-85), the only problem is that the range is quite limited.
The lenses I use with the 40D at the moment are Tokina AT-X PRO 116 11-16 f2.8, Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM, Sigma 30mm f1,4.
For FF I would probably have the 17-40L, 24-105L, the same 70-200, and the Sigma 50mm f1,4.
With my shooting style, should I have opted for the 10-22 and 24-105 on the 40D, I would have changed lenses more often and missed some shots because of the lack of f2.8.
You mileage may of course vary.
Best
Roberto
|
|
Steve, I agree with you, I would go for 5D+24-105mm f4 IS combo any day, in fact I did.
I really think 24-105mm IS is designed for 5D and both can perform excellent.
But for crop cameras, I think EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS would be a great package.
I also have the EF 17-40mm f4, which is a great lens but only if used with FF, such as 5D;
When I use mine on my 40D, the closeup shots of of people look shifted to left for some reason I cannot understand and I don't see the same phenomenon on my 5D+ 17-40mm combination.
cheerz.
Quote: :
>
The 17-40 is not that "fast" (f4), it doesn't have IS, and it would
>
Give you a rather tame 27-64mm equivalent focal range on your camera
>
(i.e. it's not that wide and not that long - for most people, 24mm is
>
The start of 'proper' wide angle).
The 17-40 is great value for a
>
Super-wide lens on a FF camera, but on a 1.6X there are MUCH better
>
Options for a "walkaround" lens.
>
>
Canon's 17-55 f2.8 EF-S lens is BY FAR the best all-round lens for
>
Non-FF SLRs. It has IS *and* it has a max aperture of f2.8.
AND it
> is as sharp as you are going to get in a zoom lens.
AND it gives a
>
More useful equivalent focal range of 27-88mm on your crop SLR.
>
>
So one option for a "walkaround" system based on a 40D, which also
>
Covers 24mm, is as follows:
>
>
40D: $940
> 10-22: $700
>
17-55: $1000
>
Total: $2640
>
>
However, for £2700 you could get a 5D plus a 24-105L instead!
>
>
:)
>
>
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> > 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
>
>
> > Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm
>
> shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future
>
> I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go
>
> ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a
>
> not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal
>
> 2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more
>
> advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
>
>
> > Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
|
|
The 24-105mm is a great lens but I ended up selling it and getting the 17-55mm, which is perfect for the 40D...make sure it doesn't front/back focus!!
Mine front focuses slightly, but it's still great.
I also have the 17-40mm and it's sitting on the shelf waiting for a FF camera some day or to be sold.
The 10-22mm is great, but it doesn't do the job of a wide angle together with the 24-105mm, because it's a pain to keep switching and even 22mm is a bit wide to be a 'normal' focal length.
If you are only shooting outside, then maybe the 24-105mm is better than the 17-55mm, but if you want a versatile lens for portraits, landscape, every day, go for the 17-55mm.
--
Nimnar
|
|
The 17-40 is a terrific value UWA lens on FF, and a very limited lens on a crop body, where it lacks range and speed compared to 4 other excellent lenses (the Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina 1x-5x f/2.8 lenses).
Practically speaking there is no overlap between the Canon 10-22 and the 17-55, because no one buys the UWA to shoot at 17-22mm.
The range between 10-17 is HUGE.
Also keep in mind the 10-22 is f/4.5 at the long end....
If you're concerned about the cash - the Sigma 10-20 is also excellent and much cheaper.
Will give you just as dramatic results.
IMHO the 24-105/4 is another great lens on FF, but frustrating on crop since 24mm is not wide enough - you will bang your back into walls indoors foot zooming back :-) Or worse - like into a waiter carrying food :-) Still - it is a very wide range so I can understand a bit of the appeal for some, but not enough.
Go for one of the 1x-5x f/2.8 lenses for a crop and don't look back.
Get the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 later.
Forget the overlap - for practical matters it does not exist.
Remember you can usually foot zoom forward, and you can always crop in PP to simulate telephoto, but foot zooming backwards is a problem, and with a 24mm lens you'll miss quite a bit in many events, and you don't want to constantly change lenses.
Quote: :
>
I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
>
>
Lots of passion on both sides it seems.
Here's my situation -- I'm
>
Shooting on a 40D, and I'm thinking that sometime in the near future
>
I want to add a 10-22 lens for dramatic WA shots.
Not planning to go
>
Ff anytime in the next few years.
If I see the 10-22 as a
>
Not-so-far-away purchase, would the 17-40/17-55 still be the optimal
>
2 choices for a gen-purpose walkaround, or would it be more
>
Advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
>
>
Thanks for any thoughts.
>
>
>
>
|
|
Hey Mokes (and everyone else),
Thanks for the advice, really helpful to a relative newbie on this equipment.
If I already have the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (something I neglected to mention), might that conceptually take the place of a 1x-5x 2.8 , and spend the money instead on a 10-22.
Will be in Dubai and Tanzania doing some architecture and some landscapes on the wide end....
Thanks!
|
|
I agree with Rick.
I have the 17-55, the 24-105 & the 70-200 4.
All are Is & all are great lenses.
They overlap but I use them all.
I wish I could do the same kind of thing with longer telephoto lenses.
One day maybe.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos.
I am 61 & technically challenged.
|
|
When you really want wide angle the 10-22 is a great lens.
I sold mine because I didn't use it enough.
But if you really like or need wide angle, it can't be beat.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos.
I am 61 & technically challenged.
|
|
> I've read many of the "battle" threads between the 17-40L vs.
17-55
> 2.8 IS for a crop sensor camera walk-around lens.
I have the 10-22 and 17-40.
Both are excellent lenses, but sometimes I get frustrated with the slow f/4 and short 40mm on the 17-40.
Someday, I will replace the 17-40 with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-70 f/2.8 L.
>
Or would it be more
>
Advantageous to go with the 24-105 f/4 L?
Not for me.
The 24-105 does have the reach, but does not solve the f/4 slow problem for me.
As an upgrade for the 17-40, it has to be f/2.8 or it isn't worth it.
The faster aperture means more for natural light shooting.
--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/favorites
http://www.pbase.com/citylights/show_case
.
|
|
Your better off with the new IS kit lens than the 17-40L , check the reviews.
17-40L's strength is on a full frame body, not a crop.
Theres numerous options that are better than it for crop walkabouts now.
|
|
Quote: :
> Your better off with the new IS kit lens than the 17-40L , check the
>
Reviews.
I'm better off with a plastic mount, rotating front element and flaky build quality?
There is no "best walkaround" for a crop until Canon makes the crop equivalent of the 24-105 or 24-70(15-60 EFS).
|
|
|
What do you mean with a general purpose walkaround lens?
If you want the best image quality from a zoom and low light capabilities then take the 17-55.
If you want a good lens for outdoor and vacation I suggest you to consider the Sigma 17-70 DC (better quality) or the Canon 17-85 IS (more reach).
|
|
|
|