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

[ilzho]

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.

[Waddizzle]

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

[ilzho]

7D Mark II

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.)

[ilzho]

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

[TTMartin]

---

@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.

[ScottyP]

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. 

[ebiggs1]

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. 

[ilzho]

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

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.