# 17-40 VS 17-55



## Jixr (Oct 23, 2013)

hey guys, i'm inbetween a rock and a hard place.

here is the deal. First off I use a Canon T3i and have no intentions of getting a full frame body.


Wanting a good walk around lens, I recently picked up like new used 17-40mm F4 L, and its a really good lens, Though I'm really considering trading/selling it for a Canon 17-55mm 2.8. 

I've tried both lens's out ( in a store ), and I really like the 2.8 and IS of the 55, but the build quality is poor compared to the L ( if you look up with an extended barrel it will creep back down ) the zoom and focus rings are not as smooth, and I dont like that the barrel extends so much when zooming.

the 40 is pretty good, the only complaint i have is the f4 is not as fast, and ( probably due to my inexperience than the lens ) night shots i'm lucky if I get 1 out of 3 pictures to be useable. I love that its smaller and lighter than the 55, the build quality is amazing. The only thing I dont like is that its its a bit slow. I don't yet own a flash and while using it the other day for a friends portraits, and I ended up getting better shots with my 50mm 1.8 than the L. Though mine is used, its in flawless shape, and despite being made in 2004 the previous owner had a recipt showing he bought it only 6 months ago, and it was too wide for his full frame.

I went with the L because it was in good shape, and I feel like I got a good deal on it. And I love the wide angle and its nice for indoor shots and landscape/architecture and some street style photography. Currently used 55's are in the $650+ range on my local Craigslist. And I got lucky and got a deal on my L. New both lens's currently retail about the same, so I figured I should be able to do a 1:1 trade.


Do you guys think I should try to sell/trade it for the 17-55mm 2.8?

I do wish my L was a 2.8 IS, but the build quality concerns me a bit. as ( to me ) both are very expensive lens's and I would like them to last. I also ( my inexperience ) dislike the 2.8 because I have a hard time getting (espc at wide shots ) in focus, i'll often miss the area that I want to get in focus, and the f4 makes it a bit easier for me. ( though I'm aware you can stop down the 2.8 )


opinions, ideas, views, thoughts all welcome.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Wanting a good walk around lens, I recently picked up like new used 17-40mm F4 L, and its a really good lens, Though I'm really considering trading/selling it for a Canon 17-55mm 2.8.



Sell the 17-40L unless you really want the sealing (though your Rebel isn't sealed) or the build quality - this L lens isn't designed for crop and not very sharp wide open. I used it as a walkaround on crop for some time (with a larger lens hood), but now that I also have a ff I see the difference and only use the 17-40L @f8-f11 on crop if I don't want to change lenses.

If you want to stay with crop, better get a real aps-c ultrawide like the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16, they're easier to design for aps-c than on full frame and thus you get better image quality for less money.



Jixr said:


> I also ( my inexperience ) dislike the 2.8 because I have a hard time getting (espc at wide shots ) in focus, i'll often miss the area that I want to get in focus



Use Magic Lantern with focus peaking (and the extra live view gain so you can use your camera for night vision) - problem solved.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 23, 2013)

i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 23, 2013)

Jixr said:


> i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.



Still, if you shoot crop and want a crop standard zoom there's little reason not to get an aps-c lens because the inherent system advantage (smaller mirror) is also good for the 17- or 15- range.

Personally I'd get the 15-85 for the larger zoom range, but if you really want/need f2.8 the 17-55 is also fine except for the unfortunate fact that Canon doesn't build sealed or sturdy aps-lenses (thanks, Canon!).


----------



## brad-man (Oct 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Jixr said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not interested in a crop wide angle, I bought the 17-40 because at 1.6, it fits in most of the zoom range I use most often.
> ...



+1 IMO, the 15-85 is the best single lens solution for APSC. You can pick up a cheap prime or two if you need faster. Canon wants you to upgrade your camera first, and then upgrade your lens(s).


----------



## Jixr (Oct 23, 2013)

Yeah, which is why i'm a bit worried to give up my L.

its not the best built lens ever, but better than the 55 for sure.

pretty much its either build quality or a fast lens with IS


I know there is no wonder lens, but I'm trying to slim down my camera bag as much as possible. and unfortunately there are no cheap wide angle fast primes. And I suppose I can just post it on the local CL and see if I get a bite. No harm in doing that.


----------



## Menace (Oct 24, 2013)

Given the choice, I'd rather have a faster lens than a weather sealed esp if the body isn't sealed either.

Ask yourself If you are person who looks after their other electronic gear such mobile phone, iPad, lap top etc etc do you end up replacing them constantly? As long as you (reasonably) take care of 17-55 you should be ok.

Also, do you shoot much in dusty/wet/harsh conditions?


----------



## Pi (Oct 24, 2013)

The 17-55 feels rough around the edges but its durability is no worse than an L zoom. I used it for several years, it traveled around the world with me, and did not blink (well, expect when it was taking a shot). No creep, no dust either. It does not look fancy and does not feel smooth but it is a better choice than the 17-40: faster, more reach, IS, sharper overall.


----------



## candc (Oct 24, 2013)

If you want the sharpest and fastest normall zoom for a crop body get the sigma 18-35 1.8 , just get the dock with it because if you are willing to tune then its hands down the best.


----------



## Policar (Oct 24, 2013)

On APS-C the 17-40mm L is optically poor. I would take the (significantly optically superior) 18-55mm kit zoom over it any day UNLESS weather sealing were a factor.

The 17-55mm is a very good lens and affordable now, but not that much better than the kit lens in some respects. However it is SO much better than the 17-40mm L. You get a faster lens by a full stop, IS, decent macro, more reliable AF (imo), and a focal length that is useable for portraiture. No comparison.

The Sigma is GREAT but focus is unreliable, which kind of kills the deal.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 24, 2013)

Hmmm... For that kind of money and having no intention of moving to FF, the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 VC or Non-VC can be a little bit better alternative than a 17-55 especially if you intend on getting an UWA also. But of course, the 17-55 is better optically and will serve you well. If you opt for the Sigma F1.8 which is optically good but AF seems a problem, then just make sure you can get it from a store where you can easily return and exchange if something isn't working properly. F4 in APS-C is limiting especially at not well lit places. I'd rather have a couple of primes than the L then.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 24, 2013)

Get the 17-55. I used mine heavily for a year before upgrading to a 5DIII with a 24-105. Optically, the 17-55 is an L lens. Put a B+W or a Hoya HD clear filter on front and you don't need to worry about the much talked about dust issue. Not dust in mine. Due to the design of the zoom mechanism, the resistance will tighten slightly around 24mm. When I fist got my lens, this bothered me. But, when I shot with it, I forgot all about it -- not an issue.

If using the lens in combat situations, military or press photog, maybe the "build quality" would be a concern. But, I think this is much overhyped. Don't worry about it. The 17-55 is a great crop lens. You'll love the benefits of 2.8 and IS.

I still have mine and still use it. (I have kids getting interested in photography now.)


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 24, 2013)

I vote for 17-55 f2.8
but I recommend you to take a look at the Tamron version instead.
It is supposed to be sharper than the Canon


----------



## M.ST (Oct 24, 2013)

The 17-40 L works very well on APS-C, but the 17-55 2.8 IS is better.

Notice that the 17-55 2.8 IS is internal a L lens. The 17-55 2.8 IS has L glasses in it.

I personally like the 17-55 2.8 IS from f/3.2 (3.5) up to f/11. At f/2.8 the lens is not so bad as many other lenses, but if you compare it with the 24-70 2.8 II L on FF you see, that the IQ of the 24-70 2.8 II L is a very big step over the 17-55 2.8 IS.


----------



## andersde (Oct 24, 2013)

Menace said:


> Given the choice, I'd rather have a faster lens than a weather sealed esp if the body isn't sealed either.
> 
> Ask yourself If you are person who looks after their other electronic gear such mobile phone, iPad, lap top etc etc do you end up replacing them constantly? As long as you (reasonably) take care of 17-55 you should be ok.



This is a really good point. Too often we see a lens knocked because of 'build quality' issues or lack of weather sealing. Unless you need to shoot in poor weather conditions or are particularly hard on your gear it's just not necessary. You should go for the lens that gives the best results for what you need.

For crop I'd choose one of canon 17-55, sigma 18-35 or 15-85.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2013)

Menace said:


> Given the choice, I'd rather have a faster lens than a weather sealed esp if the body isn't sealed either. Also, do you shoot much in dusty/wet/harsh conditions?



If shooting in the said conditions (like I do) getting a sealed lens even if the body isn't sealed, or not at 1d level, does make sense - that's why I have a 17-40L for my 60d, even though the iq is mediocre wide open.

The problem is that the lens is a very large sand/water catcher, no matter the body - I painfully learned this when my non-sealed non-L 100mm macro broke down twice, now I've upgraded to the L version because looking at constant repairs the L is actually *cheaper* than the non-L.

Murphy's Law also dictates that you don't have to shoot a *lot* in harsh conditions, even sometimes is sufficient to call for disaster... it's annoying and Canon's commercial policy to make you "upgrade", but there you are: With crop, you have to choose between sealing and top iq :-(


----------



## robbinzo (Oct 24, 2013)

I believe the answer to your question is to try out both lenses for yourself.
However, here are my thoughts (in no particular order) on my 17-40mm: 
The 17-55 EFS gets rave reviews for it's optics but personally I'm not so bothered about razor sharp images.
I use the 17-40 mm L on my 550D a lot because it has the right focal length range for me. 
I like the fact that the 17-40 focuses and zooms internally - the front element does not extend.
Corner sharpness is not such an issue on crop as it is on FF.
Note: The 17-40mm L auto-focuses _very quickly_.
I don't use the 17-40mm for my livelihood so I'm not too bothered by a little barrel distortion or softness.
This lens is relatively robust and seems well balanced on my 550D.
Having said all that, an extra f stop is always nice to have.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 24, 2013)

thanks for all the feed back, i'll post it up on craigslist and see if I can either sell or trade it for a 17-55.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Zv (Oct 24, 2013)

robbinzo said:


> I believe the answer to your question is to try out both lenses for yourself.
> However, here are my thoughts (in no particular order) on my 17-40mm:
> The 17-55 EFS gets rave reviews for it's optics but personally I'm not so bothered about razor sharp images.
> I use the 17-40 mm L on my 550D a lot because it has the right focal length range for me.
> ...



Wrong. I think you'll find that the front element actually does move a little when zooming but not beyond the the filter thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2013)

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.



Zv said:


> I think you'll find that the front element actually does move a little when zooming but not beyond the the filter thread.



Correct - and that's why a front filter is required to complete the dust/weather sealing of the 17-40/4L.


----------



## Zv (Oct 24, 2013)

I had both lenses for a while and for me they are made for two different purposes. Although you can use the 17-40 on a crop body it's not optimized for it and at a max aperture of f/4 you are really limiting yourself (unless you have a tripod or love shooting at ISO ridiculous) as there is no IS either. It's a wide angle lens and has all the distortion and other flawa that go along with it. I guess on the plus side the soft corners get cropped away! 

Now, the 17-55 is my recommendation for anyone who wants a serious all purpose lens on their crop body. Sharp at all apertures, f/2.8, IS rated at 3 stops (I got more out it) and unbelievably fast AF. If it was weather sealed it would have been the ultimate lens. Shame that really. I did get dust inside but you know what, who cares? Dust doesn't matter. (I know because I stupidly tried to open it up and clean it out of vanity!). 

I sold mine for the 24-105L but that was because I wanted to go FF otherwise I woulda kept the 17-55. 

Note - I love the 17-40L on FF. I think it rocks as a UWA for the price. A bit of clever sharpening in post and voila!


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 24, 2013)

I use to own a 17-40 f4 until I replaced it with the 16-35 f2.8. I also own the 17-55 f2.8 IS that I use on my 60D.

Since you have no plans to go full frame, I'd recommend the 17-55 f2.8 IS over the 17-40 f4. Yeah, build quality of the 17-55 isn't superb but its image quality, faster aperture, and image stabilization more than make up for it. It will prove to be a much more versatile lens when paired with your T3i.

One other consideration would be the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. It's cheaper than the 17-55 f2.8 IS and is 1 1/3 stops faster which will negate the lack of IS (unless you record video) while providing you with a shallower depth of field. Though I've never used such a lens.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Oct 24, 2013)

In short, for crop, the 17-55 f2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, and a better image maker than the 17-40. I owned it for years, even when I had full frame cameras.

The 17-40 is a solid L series built lens and will serve you well. 

But it's IQ lags behind the 17-55 in every area when used on the same camera.


----------



## KBStudio (Oct 24, 2013)

My copy of the 17-40 f4L is one of the sharpest lenses I have owned. To give you an idea of how good this copy is, it is only surpassed by a Nikkor 120mm WA lens I used on my Sinar P2s. No Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Sigma or Canon lens has equaled this copy for sharpness in the center. Have noticed that my old manual focus fixed focal length Nikkors are better corrected edge to edge than any of my Canon L lenses. Though they are not as sharp at the center they are sharper from the middle to the edges. Interesting as these are 30 year old copies.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 24, 2013)

Well, i guess i can go to the camera shop, snap a few pics with the 55 and see how it compares to my 40.


I'm talking with a guy now about trading mine 40 for his 55, but I would have to add in a little cash, and I just want to be confident that I pick the best lens out of the two.

and as far as some of the other lens's mentioned, i've tried some of the cheaper options from other manufacturers, and the focus speed of everything i've tried so far has not been able to match that of my L or the 55 ( which to me, both felt the same in terms of speed and accuracy ) while some of the others IQ was a better bang for the buck, the AF killed it for me. 

And as far as "needing" a weather proof lens, i'm not a pro photographer, but I always have my camera with me ( doing a 365 project ) and I do quite often find myself outdoors and my bag is not the most sealed up or protected bag in the world. I do have a filter that will fit ( both are 77mm )but its a cheaper one and gets flares pretty bad with it. I only put it on when needed. 

I don't really care that much for the extra 15mm zoom distance, but the 2.8 and the IS is really making it seem the better walk around lens for me. ( I love shooting up close and wide angle, so the 2.8 bokeh would look good with the type of work I like to do )


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 24, 2013)

I had my decision for you when you said no plans to go to full frame.

17-55 all the way. no equivocation about it. there is a dust issue, bit that isn't a factor regarding image quality.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 24, 2013)

I would say the 17-55 given your plans. The dust issue isn't that much based on my experiences so far.


----------



## Joe M (Oct 24, 2013)

I exclusively shoot with a pair of 5D3s now but I've had a pair of 7Ds and a 40D in the past. When I had the 7D/40D cameras, I found the 17-55 was a great compliment to them. The extra 15mm is not a huge deal but yes, you will find times when IS and 2.8 is a big deal. IS is not necessary but handy at times for those poorly lit static objects and low shutter speeds and the 2.8 will help keep the shutter speeds up until the light gets very poor. It also helps to reduce your depth a little for certain shots. I used this lens extensively on the crop bodies used as second and third cameras to my 5D series and was always rewarded with very nice images. It didn't go through rain but hot, cold, windy, and so forth ending up with what I would consider normal amount of dust and keeping it's value enough that I could sell it used with no issues. 
It's a little pricey new, could use a little touch of L but as is, it's a very nice lens to put in front of any crop camera. I'd personally pop this on a crop camera before the 17-40 any day. My preference is a faster lens (and IS doesn't hurt) but the mileage of others will vary.
Good luck in your decision.


----------

