# 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 17-40mm f/4L for a crop camera



## Synomis192 (Feb 19, 2012)

Again, I've posted here before asking about different lens. So now I'm being a little realistic.

Rather than purchasing 24-105, I'm thinking about getting the 17-40mm as a replacement for my kit lens.

Which lens is going to be a better replacement for my 18-55mm?

If you do have another suggestion, I'd like to hear it as well. But my price range is from $500 - $800.

(Side note, I do not plan on going FF. I do plan on upgrading to a 7d though, even though it's still a crop sensor camera)


----------



## pj1974 (Feb 19, 2012)

Go for the 15-85mm if you're sure you'll not go FF. It's a great lens - from an IQ perspective most copies of the 15-85mm are very sharp, produce contrasty / well coloured images. You won't notice an IQ deficiency when using the 15-85mm in comparison with the 17-40.

The 15-85mm has a wider zoom range than the 17-40. I'd find the 40mm tele end quite limiting. Also, the 2mm on the wide end are very useful. The 15-85mm has IS, whereas the 17-40mm doesn't. Both have USM / FTM. I use the 15-85mm on my 7D as my main lens, and yes, I have and use L lenses, but the 15-85mm is up there in image quality with many L zooms.

The main thing the 17-40mm has for it, is a slightly superior build quality (and of course, FF compatibiility). The 17-40L is constant aperture, but to me (and many users) that's not a big issue, especially as at 40mm the 15-85mm has just gone from f4.5 to f5.0 (which isn't much 'slower' than f4). So for me it's a no brainer.

All the best.

Paul


----------



## Jay (Feb 19, 2012)

Can you spend a bit more? If you can, you should try 17-55 out. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

It's just way more useful than 17-40. Better range, f2.8, IS and great image quality. If you're not planning on getting a FF, then there's no point getting 17-40. 

If canon 17-55 is to too expensive, I'd look into the latest, sigma version. That's really sharp too with similar features as canon. To me, it makes more sense than getting the 17-40. 

If you're short on money, maybe you could look into second-hand copies. A good lens is a good lens even if someone else touched it first. Since 17-55 is crop only, many people sell it when switching to FF.

You might want to drop 17-40 and choose between 17-55mm F/2.8 and 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6. 17-55mm is faster but 15-85mm has more range. Both are good and have IS.


----------



## koolman (Feb 19, 2012)

I have the 15-85 and used it quite allot on a 550d. The zoom range is very useful, the lens has nice IS, focuses fast, and is built well. Alas, I had 3 problems with it as a primary "walk around" lens.

1) I like shooting indoors with available light - and it was to slow on the >= 60mm end (5.6)

2) Its somewhat heavy to carry around.

3) LENS CREEP that drove me crazy. You take a shot and turn the camera down to look at the LCD, and the lens drops down!.

I went with the Tamron 17-50 non VC. In my opinion its IQ is better, it lighter, and I love the colors and sharpness.
The Tammy's AF is a little dicey especially in low light, and it needs getting used to.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 19, 2012)

If the decision has to be made between those 2 go for the 17-40 independent from the decision of going FF later.
L glass is definitely the better choice. Only the 10-22 and 17-55 are said to be close to L in terms of IQ.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 19, 2012)

The 15-85 is the better choice on a crop body. It has more zoom range and IS. The only advantage I see for the 17-40 is its weather sealing (only if you upgrade to a 7D) and better build quality.
Check out the ISO 12233 test charts at the-digital-picture.com

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=474&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 (both on 50D)

as well as the distortion test:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&FLI=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=2

The 15-85 looks sharper and has less CA but more distortion.

I use the 15-85 on my 7D and am totally satisfied with the results. I used the 18-55 IS on my Rebel XS before and the bigger zoom range, better AF and better IS is amazing.
Skip the 17-40 and look at the EF-s 17-55 2.8 if you don't need too much zoom but a little bit better low light performance and/or even better image quality.


----------



## lol (Feb 19, 2012)

I think the 17-40 only makes good sense in one of two cases: 1: you have or are shortly going to go full frame or 2: you need the extra resistance of the lens. Otherwise the 15-85 will provide you with more potential.


----------



## Abraxx (Feb 19, 2012)

The question should be rather 17-55 or 15-85?
The 17-40 on crop is 27,2-64.
So as long as you are not planning to go for FF and do not need wide angle at all,
you just can not compare these lenses regarding their focal length.

I prefer the 17-55 over the 15-85. IQ is far better on the first.

My 2 cents


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2012)

Definitely 15-85mm. It is very good optically (sharpness, colors), great range, IS, decent build and true USM. There must be L glass in it . What else do you need?

EDIT: Yes, I had one


----------



## Synomis192 (Feb 19, 2012)

Well everyone has been talking about the 15-85mm, so I think I'll be choosing that. But some one mention the Tamron 17-50mm and the Canon 17-55.

If I had the money, I would DEFINITELY go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 but it cost around $1,000.

So, now I have a new question. How about the Tamron 17-50mm vs the Canon 15-85mm

My main problem with the 15-85mm, is the lens creep. I'm really afraid of that.


----------



## candyman (Feb 19, 2012)

I am also in the process of buying a new general purpose lens. Currently having an APS-C lens covering 17-70


I have been reading many reviews and also reading comments of users regarding Canon 15-85 and Canon 17-55. The 17-55 comes to my favour though it has less reach for me. But I do not want to be limited so much when taken photo's indoor. Having a constant aperture of f/2.8 is helping a lot. And, the reviews claim that the 17-55 is sharp wide open and from edge to edge. But the 17-55 has a little bit troubles with flare compared to the 15-85 lens. You can manage around that - most of the time.
Of course the 17-55 and 15-85 are not weather sealed. So with the 7D you will have a weather sealed camera but not a weather sealed lens. The 17-40 is weather sealed. But according to reviews less sharp than the 17-55.


I decided to go for the 17-55 f/2.8 (currently around €830 without lens hood)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. The 15-85mm is also very good, especially if most use will be outdoors. I would not choose the 17-40L for an APS-C camera unless that camera was a 7D and I required the weather-resistance of an L lens.


----------



## elflord (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> So, now I have a new question. How about the Tamron 17-50mm vs the Canon 15-85mm



Really depends on what you're using the lens for (if you want f/2.8 or the longer range). If you're using it indoors, the Tamron. For an outdoor walkaround, the 15-85.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Well everyone has been talking about the 15-85mm, so I think I'll be choosing that. But some one mention the Tamron 17-50mm and the Canon 17-55.
> 
> If I had the money, I would DEFINITELY go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 but it cost around $1,000.
> 
> ...



My copy had no lens creep, but even if it did it would be only between 24mm and 50mm while remaining stable at the rest of the focal range. I think this "problem" is overrated.
I've tried Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, didn't really like it - backward zoom from right to left (same awkward Nikon style ), noisy AF, not as sharp as it's older non-VC version.
Before you ask ... later I've got Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. It has some flaws as well - focusing ring has a very short travel, almost useless for manual focusing, you have to switch between AF/MF each time you want to focus manually and the focusing ring rotates during the AF (front element does not, just the ring), but AF is very fast and silent (and accurate). It was very sharp wide open, but at 17mm the edges were a little soft, not very good for landscapes (or maybe it's just me, but I think 15-85 is much much better for wide angle). I would choose Sigma over Tamron any day of the week. However, you get what you pay for, and when it comes to overall quality the 17-55/2.8 IS USM and 15-85 IS USM are the best.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> My main problem with the 15-85mm, is the lens creep. I'm really afraid of that.



My lens doesn't creep very much. However it's only 4 months old.



Synomis192 said:


> So, now I have a new question. How about the Tamron 17-50mm vs the Canon 15-85mm



Only get the Tamron, if you need to shoot @f/2.8. Get the non VC version. It is much better. The 15-85 is better than the VC-version, even when stopped down to equal apartures.


17-50 VC vs 15-85 @24mm f/4.0
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=679&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

17-50 non VC vs 15-85 @24mm f/4.0
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)
If you shoot mainly outdoors or static subjects and can't afford the Canon 17-55 go for the 15-85.

Btw. the Tamron VC-version has a zoom lock switch ;D


----------



## elflord (Feb 19, 2012)

LuCoOc said:


> Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)



At the long end it's f/5.6 (2 stops). At 55mm, it's f/5 (1 2/3 stops). f/2.8 isn't just an advantage for low light -- you can still get reasonably shallow dof at 55mm f/2.8 on a crop, whereas the 15-85mm is pretty much an "f/8 and be there" lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

elflord said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)
> ...



Agreed, which is why I prefer the 17-55mm - it does pretty well as a portrait lens, too, whereas the 15-85mm often cannot deliver sufficient OOF blur for the desired framing, because of the narrower aperture. The wider aperture also allows faster shutter speeds when needed. To me, that makes the 17-55mm a better general purpose zoom - outdoors and indoors, landscapes, action and portraits, vs. the 15-85mm which is more suited to outdoors and landscapes.


----------



## paulc (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> My main problem with the 15-85mm, is the lens creep. I'm really afraid of that.



Lens creep is an annoyance, not an actual problem. The only exception to this is tripod work where you're pointing up or down. I've got the 28-135, the creepiest of the creepers and I'm still alive.

Don't fear the creeper. ;D


----------



## RC (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> My main problem with the 15-85mm, is the lens creep. I'm really afraid of that.



Had a new 15-85 and lens creep only occurred very little and that was when I was pointing the lens straight up such as moon shots. Sold it because I needed weather sealing with my 7D.


----------



## sawsedge (Feb 19, 2012)

I replaced my 17-40 with the 15-85 for the range. I wanted something a little wider, and a little longer. The tradeoff is losing a stop of speed. Outdoors this isn't a problem.

I have no zoom creep.

The 15-85 is sharp from corner to corner wide open at every setting (there is a tiny bit of loss of sharpness in the very extreme corner which doesn't affect most real-world images). Bokeh is quite decent, as is color and contrast.

I wish it was weather sealed, and faster, but the image quality can't be beat.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 19, 2012)

This really shouldn't be that difficult of a decision. Buy the 15-85mm. 

The quality of the glass is excellent. The zoom range covers all the most-used focal lengths from 24mm to 135mm. It's affordable and has very good IS. It's a substantial lens with good, solid build-quality that can withstand lots of banging around.

Would I prefer a 15-85mm f4 constant aperture? Yes, but they don't make that one – yet.

Zoom creep on mine is horrible. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be "afraid" of zoom creep. It's at worst an inconvenience. If you are shooting something straight up or straight down, just hold on to the zoom ring when shooting. Not that difficult. In normal use, you are going to be looking through the viewfinder to frame the subject before shooting so it really doesn't matter if the lens has zoomed itself in, just zoom it back out. Again, not that difficult.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2012)

elflord said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)
> ...



17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.



unfocused said:


> This really shouldn't be that difficult of a decision. Buy the 15-85mm.
> 
> The quality of the glass is excellent. The zoom range covers all the most-used focal lengths from 24mm to 135mm. It's affordable and has very good IS. It's a substantial lens with good, solid build-quality that can withstand lots of banging around.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## elflord (Feb 19, 2012)

ecka said:


> 17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.



I'm not saying that the 15-85mm needs to be stopped down to perform adequately, I'm saying that even "wide open" (or as open as it can go), it doesn't have very shallow depth of field. At the tele end of its range, it is depth-of-field equivalent to f/8 or f/9 on a full frame, which is what motivated my reference to "f/8 and be there". 

I agree that it performs pretty well at its maximum apertures. It's is a slow zoom, but as far as slow zooms go, it's pretty good.


----------



## lol (Feb 19, 2012)

The original question was a choice of either the 17-40 or 15-85. Neither develop much shallow depth of field. And if you really wanted shallow depth of field, you could consider the 50mm f/1.8 in addition to the 15-85 which combined still costs less than the 17-55 by itself.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > LuCoOc said:
> ...



Oops! Tatally agree with you two... kinda mixed the 3 lenses in this thread. Anyway, get the 15-85 and if neccessary a flash (430 EX II?) for indoor use.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2012)

elflord said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.
> ...



Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent)  , isn't it?
I do agree that 17-55 f/2.8 aperture is a strong point against 15-85, but it is out of the OP's budget. So ... why arguing?
You can get 15-85 + 430EXII for less than 17-55 alone.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 19, 2012)

I've had a 17-40, 17-55, 24-105, and now use a 15-85mm on my crop camera.

The 17-55 is a great lens, but for outdoor and good light, the wider range of the 15-85 is very nice. I personally did not like the 17-40 on a crop, or on my 5D MK II as well. It just seemed to lack something.

A 24-105mm L is excellent on both crop and FF, but I found 24mm to often be too long on a crop.

You will not go wrong with any of the lenses its just matching the aperture and focal length to what you need.


----------



## AJ (Feb 19, 2012)

elflord said:


> Synomis192 said:
> 
> 
> > So, now I have a new question. How about the Tamron 17-50mm vs the Canon 15-85mm
> ...


^^^ this

If you want to shoot selective focus with crop gear you'll need a fast prime, or something like a fast 70-200. Don't count on your standard zoom, neither 17-55 nor 15-85 delivers much blur.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2012)

ecka said:


> 17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.



How do you figure that? Wide open, they have similar center sharpness through the range, and away from the center, the 17-55mm is sharper. Plus, wide open is wider on the 17-55mm. Also, sharpness isn't everything. The 17-55mm has less distortion and less vignetting, and while those can easily be corrected in post, proper correction of the distortion at 15mm means you're not getting a 15mm AoV, and the corrections also mean even softer (and noisier) corners. But really, the differences in IQ are minor, and shouldn't be the deciding factor. Rather, it's a trade off between aperture and focal range, and of course, budget.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Again, I've posted here before asking about different lens. So now I'm being a little realistic.
> 
> Rather than purchasing 24-105, I'm thinking about getting the 17-40mm as a replacement for my kit lens.
> 
> ...



This should really be a simple decision. The 17-40mm L is the absolute worst choice you could possibly have on a crop body. That lens is only useful on full frame. The reason is that is virtually idencial performance to the 18-55mm IS kit lens, while having significantly less features in many key areas. Canon makes an amazing kit lens for it's crop bodies. The 15-85mm is one of the best lenes around though.


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 19, 2012)

The best lens (IMO) is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I have this lens, and it is as sharp as both my L lenses (24-105, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS). It is the best general purpose lens, and the first one I would get for a crop camera. It handles low light well, has good IS, very good IQ - it is essentially the 24-70 f/2.8L for the crop cameras. I waited over a year before I got it and wondered why I waited so long.

The extra $150 over the 15-85 is well worth it.

For an outdoor walk-around lens, I would get the 24-105 f/4L or the 15-85. Both have very good IQ and IS. The primary difference is the focal length.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > 17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.
> ...



Yes, you are right, I just thought that elflord's point was that 15-85 is only good at f/8 
Not so long ago (maybe less than a year) I did my "homework" before buying 15-85 for my 7D. The conclusion was that I don't need an L zoom for a crop body because I would use less half of that L lens potential. Optically 17-55 and 15-85 are just as good. However, 17-55 sharpness at f/2.8 didn't really satisfy me, it was very similar to that of 18-55 kit lens. So, if I'm going to use it at f/4 or smaller apertures then 15-85 is a much better choice for it's range, size/weight and price. While talking about DoF, short 2.8 zoom on a crop body isn't really that great (compared to FF). It may be not bad at 55/2.8 but for all the rest it is not a must have.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 19, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Again, I've posted here before asking about different lens. So now I'm being a little realistic.
> 
> Rather than purchasing 24-105, I'm thinking about getting the 17-40mm as a replacement for my kit lens.
> 
> ...




Tamron 17-50 2.8 is great. I sold my 17-40L after comparing them.

15-85 is slower but has much larger range and adds IS, maybe not quite as sharp, but still sharp.
Never tried it but some say the sigma 17-50 OS is good.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 19, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> The best lens (IMO) is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I have this lens, and it is as sharp as both my L lenses (24-105, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS). It is the best general purpose lens, and the first one I would get for a crop camera. It handles low light well, has good IS, very good IQ - it is essentially the 24-70 f/2.8L for the crop cameras. I waited over a year before I got it and wondered why I waited so long.
> 
> The extra $150 over the 15-85 is well worth it.
> 
> For an outdoor walk-around lens, I would get the 24-105 f/4L or the 15-85. Both have very good IQ and IS. The primary difference is the focal length.



I agree 100%, also the variable aperture on the 15-85 can be limiting in certain situations.


----------



## elflord (Feb 20, 2012)

ecka said:


> Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent)  , isn't it?



Sure, and that's a wide aperture, wider than f/8 and wide enough to get a pretty decent background blur though you really need a prime on APS-C to get more pronounced selective focus effects. 



> I do agree that 17-55 f/2.8 aperture is a strong point against 15-85, but it is out of the OP's budget. So ... why arguing?



The Tamron 17-50mm is in OPs budget.


----------



## ecka (Feb 20, 2012)

elflord said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent)  , isn't it?
> ...



Yes, I agree. However, as I mentioned before, Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS seems to be much nicer. It is more expensive than Tamron's older non-VC version, but it is cheaper and better than VC.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 20, 2012)

Given a choice between the two options you give, I'd pick the EFS 15-85 in a heart beat (and I did, it is my general purpose lens and I highly recommend it). But I agree with others, I would decide between the EFS 17-55 f/2.8, EFS 15-85, and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC). If you truly stick to your price range, then you decide between the Tamron and the 15-85. If you want IS/VC and focal length range then the 15-85 makes sense.

But those are three highly regarded lenses for crop sensor cameras. As I said, I use the 15-85. It does great for outdoors, my primary subject. But I also take a ton of pictures of people and it is very sharp. I do need a flash for low light settings, but you'll need a flash for many low light settings with the f/2.8 lenses as well. The fastest aperture on the 15-85 is f/3.5 to 24 mm, f/4 to 35 mm, f/4.5 to 50 mm, f/5 to 70 mm, and f/5.6 from 70 to 80 mm. So in comparable focal length ranges, you are losing a 2/3 to 1 2/3 stop.

That said, all three of those lenses are very good.


----------



## Synomis192 (Feb 20, 2012)

Well, by popular demand, I do plan on getting the 15-85mm within the next few months. Thank you guys all for your suggestions.

But I do want the 17-55mm. It's so nice. haha


----------



## Michael7 (Feb 20, 2012)

Huge real world comparison here:

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

I've owned both lenses at the same time. The 17-40 produces better images. The 15-85 is more versatile. The build quality of the 17-40 is much better, and the barrel does not extend. The 15-85 is known for lens creep, which is unacceptable for a $750 lens. That said, the 15-85 build quality is a notch up on lenses like the 10-22 and 17-55, which are IMHO, flimsy. The 15-85 also has wicked vignetting and distortion at the wide end.

As a walkaround, the 15-85 is the superior lens. For landscape on a tripod in rugged conditions with the feel and andling of "luxury", the 17-40 is your lens. The 17-40 really needs another 10mm IMHO to be a great walkaround lens. I still own mine with my 7D, but I purchased a 24-105 IS because of the short range of the 17-40.

If most of your landscapes fall between 17 and 40mm, it's the lens to have on a crop, IMHO. Flare-handling is excellent as are colors and contrast.

For indoor shooting, just get primes. 2.8 is often not fast enough. I see the 2.8 crop zooms as jack of all trades, master of none. They don't have the reach of the 15-85's or the 24-105's, nor do they have the essential speed of the primes.


----------



## sawsedge (Feb 21, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> Huge real world comparison here:
> 
> http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm
> 
> ...



I found the opposite. I never had a problem with my 17-40, but my 15-85 is definitely superior. Sample variation, I'd say. I would prefer a build like the 17-40, but I needed the extra range.

I agree with primes for indoor shooting, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I have the 50mm f/1.4 and plan to get the 28 f/1.8.


----------



## LACityPhotoCom (Feb 21, 2012)

I really do not understand why people use the 17-40L on a crop body. I had one before on a crop body and learned from my mistake. My images looked no better than my 18-55mm kit lens! Stopped down to F/8 or so, performance is identical, as most lenses are--Ls included too. If you're going to get a standard zoom for your crop body, get a fast-aperture f/2.8 zoom that way you have low-light capabilities. F/2.8 vs F/4 doesn't seem to make a difference but once you get 2.8 lenses, you can't go back. It's just a nice luxury to have. 

But if you're on a budget, consider a wide fast prime like a 28mm 1.8. Forget any slow zooms. Thats what your $100 kit lens is for. (The kit lens is actually a great performer) just have to stop down.


----------



## JTPAIN (Feb 21, 2012)

Sorry to post a question within another post - i hope the OP doesn't mind?

Wouldn't a fairer comparison be

17-40L vs. 17-55 IS

Between these two - which would 'win'?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2012)

JTPAIN said:


> Sorry to post a question within another post - i hope the OP doesn't mind?
> 
> Wouldn't a fairer comparison be
> 
> ...



The 17-55mm, except for build quality.


----------

