Canon 17-40 vs. 17-55...
Discussion
Just looking for peoples views!
Is the 17-55 worth the extra outlay?
I want to replace my cheap (but not too bad!) 18-55 and not sure which is best.
Obviously heart says speed so the 17-55 is tempting (that and I guess a bit extra stretch isn't to be sniffed at!) but head says the 17-40 is expensive enough!
It'll be on a 40D and I can't see me upgrading to a FF so I'm not worried about losing the use of the 17-55.
Is the 17-55 worth the extra outlay?
I want to replace my cheap (but not too bad!) 18-55 and not sure which is best.
Obviously heart says speed so the 17-55 is tempting (that and I guess a bit extra stretch isn't to be sniffed at!) but head says the 17-40 is expensive enough!
It'll be on a 40D and I can't see me upgrading to a FF so I'm not worried about losing the use of the 17-55.
Rob, thanks for your comments.
Your comments about the 17-40 are just what I was looking for; although I wasn't too worried by the lack of IS.
Out of interest which Tamron were you referring to?
There are two that are of similar length (17-35 & 17-50) both of which are 2.8, one fixed and one upto 4.
Many thanks!
Your comments about the 17-40 are just what I was looking for; although I wasn't too worried by the lack of IS.
Out of interest which Tamron were you referring to?
There are two that are of similar length (17-35 & 17-50) both of which are 2.8, one fixed and one upto 4.
Many thanks!
Hello,
I have a 17-40 & 40D, had the same thoughts as you ( looking to replace the kit lens ).It's just a little too wide as a walkabout lens in my opinion. It's still a lovely lens mind you.
Not sure about the tamrons, I had a 55-200 for a little while and wasn't impressed and sold it (wasn't a 2.8 mind you). The build quality was terrible.
Try them out at your nearest camera store before buying
edited to correct stupid iPhone's predictive text
I have a 17-40 & 40D, had the same thoughts as you ( looking to replace the kit lens ).It's just a little too wide as a walkabout lens in my opinion. It's still a lovely lens mind you.
Not sure about the tamrons, I had a 55-200 for a little while and wasn't impressed and sold it (wasn't a 2.8 mind you). The build quality was terrible.
Try them out at your nearest camera store before buying
edited to correct stupid iPhone's predictive text
Edited by 4hero on Thursday 16th July 00:37
Yeah, need to find the local one! 
I think something around 17-45+ is going to be the best bet, otherwise like you said, it gets a little wide for a walkabout.
Likewise, my 28-135IS perfect, but just a touch too long for a walkabout, I used it nigh on all day at the FoS; beyond a few shots at the startline using my 70-200 F4!
I'll be interested to have a look at the Tamron and 2.8 sounds ideal!
I think something around 17-45+ is going to be the best bet, otherwise like you said, it gets a little wide for a walkabout.
Likewise, my 28-135IS perfect, but just a touch too long for a walkabout, I used it nigh on all day at the FoS; beyond a few shots at the startline using my 70-200 F4!
I'll be interested to have a look at the Tamron and 2.8 sounds ideal!
The 17-50f2.8
Sigma do an 18-50f2.8 also which is pseudo macro, and a 17-70 which is not constant f2.8
The only real 'quality' one with IS is the canon EF-S f2.8IS , L like build and optics, and price.
I'd have a 17-40f4L as a wide on a FF any day not not realy as a walkabout on a crop.
Sigma do an 18-50f2.8 also which is pseudo macro, and a 17-70 which is not constant f2.8
The only real 'quality' one with IS is the canon EF-S f2.8IS , L like build and optics, and price.
I'd have a 17-40f4L as a wide on a FF any day not not realy as a walkabout on a crop.
Cheers Rob, I'll have a look at the 17-50 F2.8! 
Should have bought one last year (I did look, but couldn't justify the £500 odd for a decent 2nd hand one at the time *kick self*!) as they seem to have gone up quite a lot!
Although I could make money on my 70-200F4 if I sold it now!
RobDickinson said:
The only real 'quality' one with IS is the canon EF-S f2.8IS , L like build and optics, and price.
I'd have a 17-40f4L as a wide on a FF any day not not realy as a walkabout on a crop.
That's why I wanted the 17-55! I'd have a 17-40f4L as a wide on a FF any day not not realy as a walkabout on a crop.
Should have bought one last year (I did look, but couldn't justify the £500 odd for a decent 2nd hand one at the time *kick self*!) as they seem to have gone up quite a lot!
Although I could make money on my 70-200F4 if I sold it now!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff