topic Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L in EF & RF Lenses

Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ilzho — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:21:36 GMT

Ok, i need to make another decision between the 2 for my 'everyday' lens and landscaping.

EF-S 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM vs

EF 17-40mm f 4 L

I friend told me to get the 'L' series as I would not need IS at this range for the most part.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

Waddizzle — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:51:07 GMT

Which camera again? I'm always going to advocate the EF lens. I say go for the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ilzho — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:52:48 GMT

7D Mark II

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

RobertTheFat — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:40:40 GMT

@ilzho wrote:
7D Mark II

Since you've just bought a high-end APS-C camera, I infer that you're not going full-frame anytime soon. So I'd choose (and when I was in your situation, did choose) the 17-55 over the 17-40. Wider range, a stop faster, IS, comparable IQ. If I thought you were going to go FF, I might give you the opposite advice. (But as a FF WA, the 16-35mm f/4 is arguably a better lens than the 17-40.)

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ilzho — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:43:56 GMT

Yes, I do not plan to go FF anytime soon.....

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

TTMartin — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:39:59 GMT

@ilzho wrote:
Ok, i need to make another decision between the 2 for my 'everyday' lens and landscaping.
EF-S 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM vs
EF 17-40mm f 4 L

I friend told me to get the 'L' series as I would not need IS at this range for the most part.

The 17-40 f/4L is a marginal lens to begin with. Since it is designed for a full frame camera, you are paying for full frame edge to edge performance that literally is never in the picture.

The stock get an L lens answer doesn't cut it any more. Canon's consumer STM lens line, matches the image quality of L lenses from just a few years ago.

I wouldn't get either of those lenses, I would (and did) get the EF-S 18-135 IS STM as the walk around lens on my 7D Mk II.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ScottyP — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:56:48 GMT

Get the 17-55.

It is a 2.8 lens. Better than f/4.

It is sharper.

It does not stop at 40mm.

You have no desire to go full frame.

The 17-40 is mediocre.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ebiggs1 — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:26:20 GMT

Bob from Boston said,

"Since you've just bought a high-end APS-C camera, I infer that you're not going full-frame anytime soon. So I'd choose ...the 17-55 over the 17-40. Wider range, a stop faster, IS, comparable IQ."

Scott said,

"Get the 17-55.

It is a 2.8 lens. Better than f/4.

It is sharper.

It does not stop at 40mm.

You have no desire to go full frame.

~~The 17-40 is mediocre."~~ <---- Not correct. The lens is very good.

They explained why I also recommend the ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 for you. The single instance where I would say buy the ef 17-40mm f4L is in build quality. All "L" lenses are built extremely tough. Consumer lenses are not. You have an extremely well built and tough camera in the 7D Mk II. So do you think you need a better well built lens? If you say, yes, buy all means get the ef 17-40mm f4L.

"I would ... get the EF-S 18-135 IS STM ..."

I wouldn't. This is a big drop in quality all around, IMHO, of course. In the first place it is not a constant aperture. A 135mm lens @ f5.6 is nothing to brag about when comparing to the other choices stated.

The constant f2.8 aperture is a huge plus. Actually the main most reason for the ef-s 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM

Get the ef-s 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ilzho — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:32:23 GMT

I will get the ef-s 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

RobertTheFat — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:50:46 GMT

@ilzho wrote:
I will get the ef-s 17-55mm f 2.8 IS USM.

Be warned, though, that you may have to buy a flash unit, if you don't have one already. That lens is so large that it can cast a shadow in the coverage field of the built-in flash. (Happened to me on a 7D.)

But it's a very good lens. Both my wife and I have one, and we've been very happy with them.

Besides, there are many good reasons to own an external flash. Just try to do bounce flash with the built-in.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

ilzho — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:14:24 GMT

You're right.

My brother let me have one of his Speedlite 580 EX II external flash.

I haven't used it, but it will be essential to learn and use.

Re: Another comparison, EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS usm vs ef 17-40 F4L

Waddizzle — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:54:22 GMT

"Be warned, though, that you may have to buy a flash unit, if you don't have one already."

You would want a flash, anyway. I have found onboard flashes to only be good for fill flash in a pinch. It seems the only lens that doesn't cast a shadow are very small ones, like pancakes and the 18-55mm kit lenses they pack into T5 kits.