Canon 17-55mm f2.8. Or. Canon 17-40mm f4. (weddings with EOS 7D)

[janofotografia]

Hi i need some references about this two lenses. My tamron 17-55mm f2.8 is getting problems with its barrel, and i want somethig better. I know that the difference between this two lenses is the light and crop size, but only in focusing and image quatlity wich one would be the best?
Thanks

 

[IgsEMT]

I've worked w/ 17-40 on 1dM2. Never experienced an issues as far as focusing speed and image quality. From what I heard, Canon's 17-55 is similar to Nikon; if that is the case it is a great lens as well.
The only thing that's left to decide is price and lens speed

 

[janofotografia]

Thanks, I almost convince about the 17-55, it looks weird, more money for maybe less quality with the17-40. Thanks again

 

[bazooka]

I would say if you have no intentions of getting a full frame, the 17-55. I have the 17-40 but actually enjoyed using the Tamron 17-50 on the 40D more than the 17-40 on the mk2. I think much of this has to do with the size of the hood... it doesn't fit into my bag as easily as my other lenses. I have no experience with the 17-55 2.8, but it's a sweet looking little lens.

 

[IgsEMT]

dito in FF. 17-55 is a crop frame lens. Keep that in mind when purchasing. Fellow photog of mine, when got into the business few yrs ago got him self 30d and 40d. Later purchased various crop-lenses. Year later went Fx and for most part his lenses are vignetting left and right. He got lucky that was able to trade in his glass but he got lucky.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Check out the Sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 aswell, if you haven't seen the reviews for it you need to see the reviews for it! Alot of people think it's as good if not better than the Canon 17-55. It is cheaper and has Image stablisation aswell.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I personally have the 17-40 on a 7D and love it. For weddings, I do not think that the IS matters much. You are most likely going to be using flash in lower light due to movement anyway. As for having 1 stop worth of speed, you can also "drag the shutter" when shooting with flash. The only real benefit I could see, would be a better chance at throwing the background out of focus, but given that this lens would be most likely used in close quarters or for group shots, this renders that purpose pretty useless. Therefore why not buy the 17-40 and put the left over money towards another flash, or a battery pack, or another lens? The 17-40 will allow you to go full frame if you like. It is also sealed.

 

[MLeeK]

I have the 17-55 and find that I often get into the distortion headache at the wide end of it. I'd much prefer the 24-70 f/2.8 on a crop sensor for that reason. Plus if you ever upgrade the 24-70 goes up, the 17-55 doesn't.
Sigma also makes a pretty great 24-70 f/2.8 OS.

 

[Derrel]

You ought to just buy another Tamron 17-50 2.8. The 17-40's range is very "ehhhh"...