So here is my situation, I am currently using my kit lens to cover the wide spectrum, and my tamron 28-75 to cover midrange and my sigma 70-200 to cover the telephoto. I am looking to replace the kit lens with something of higher quality. I am really interested in the 17-40 f4L after hearing great things about it. I've never tried an L lens and I would really love to do so. My budget is about 600 dollars, and I'm looking to buy used.

I'm looking for suggestions or comments as to whether this would be the right thing to do. I find that I do not really need a fast lens at the wide spectrum so that's why I am thinking about the 17-40 f4L. When I do shoot indoors, I do all of it with my 28-75 tamron f2.8 and my 50 1.8.

What are my other options or is this the best choice?

bit of a boring choice if you already have the 28-75... i would go for the tokina 12-24 for something a little more exciting. Still has the good built quality and constant f4 of the 17-40. I doubt if you will miss the 24-28 gap

would I be missing out on the quality L lens that I have been so eager to try?

Anyone else know of any options I have with my setup to try L series lens.

I'm now looking at both the 17-40 f4L and the 20-35 f2.8L

Is the extra 3mm focal lengh significant? Which would I be better off getting? I see that 20-35 can be had for less than 500. Which lens has better resale value? Which lens is bigger? Heavier? known problems?

The 17-40 is a great all around workhorse lens. I took an informal survey here at FM of everyone's "favorite Canon lens." While many named their favorite Canon lens as the more exotics lenses, (and the costlier 24-70 was near the top of the list), the 17-40 was still frequently referred to one of the most used lenses.

I have not seen nearly as many complaints about it as I have seen about the 24-70, 16-35's on here.

Check out this thread showing a model shot with the 17-40 - absolutley stunning.

People Photography Link

Here's a 17-40 shot I took at Lake Tenaya, Yosemite a couile of years ago.

70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma

24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron

And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....

To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....

HKram wrote:
70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma

24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron

And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....

To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....


Haha. Yeah I also thought about replacing the tamron with the canon 28-70 and then keeping the kit lens, but seeing that my tamron is plenty sharp, I have no reason to do so.

My other option is to get the 20-35 f2.8 and keep my kit lens as well since it can be had for under 500.

Otherwise, I would sell my kit lens and replace it with the 17-40 f4L.

I'm still confused. Ahhh

Phil, that model link was not very useful, the pretty model distracted me from inspecting the quality picture taken with the 17-40 f4L

The 17-40 does look very sharp and some of the pictures I've seen are just amazing.

She's a cutie that's for sure.

I have the 17-40 and the Tamron. I use both and they are both great lenses. I would hate to be forced to choose only one of them. I sold a 20-35 f3.5-4.5 to buy the 17-40. The 20-35 was a very nice lens, but yes, the extra 3 mm makes a big difference.

The 17-40 takes wonderful pics and you won't regret buying one.

I guess I'll get the 17-40 for now and if I, for some reason am not satisfied with it, I'll sell it and get something else.

I tried a friend's 17-40 last Sunday in low light in my living room. Obviously shutter speeds were slower than my Tamron 28-75, but colors seemed richer and more saturated. Great lens. Too bad Canon doesn't have a 17-50 version as I find the 17-40 slightly lacking in reach to make an all around lens.

You may be surprised how useful, plus, what a high quality performer, it can be.

I have the 20-35 2.8
I get shots of my kids indoor with this lens.
Sometimes you need speed.

If your shotting landscapes, the 17-40 would be okay.

Have you though about the sigma 18-50 2.8

A very wide angle lens is not bad, but depends on exactly what do you want to shot.

i was in the same situation as you enzoferrari650, so i went ahead and bought the 17-40 to first get a taste of the L's (and see if the hype is true), and to see if it could replace my tamron + kit lens combo.

to be honest i don't know what to think because both have their advantages. currently i haven't made up my mind which to keep (whichever gets sold will fund a sigma 70-200 f2.8), but here's a list of pros/cons for each that i've found you may want to consider:

17-40L:
pros: very sharp wide open, colors are more vibrant, bokeh 'smoother' at f4
cons: 40mm isn't long enough for a walkaround, 40mm-70mm focal length gap (although i have a 50mm f1.8)

kit lens + tamron 28-75 combo
pros: longer reach, f2.8 can come in handy if you have a sharp version
cons: kit lens needs to be stopped down for sharpness on wide end, my tamron is sharper at f4 although usable at f2.8 so i'm mostly shooting at f4

obviously my findings will vary from yours or anyone else's depending on whether or not you have a good copy, but i thought i'd throw them out there since we're in the same boat

Enzo,

The kit lens is nowhere near as wide as the 17-40. I think the max view angle on the kit lens is something like 75 degrees, and the 17-40 is [EDIT] 104 degrees. On the 300D, the 18-55 did not seem like a wide angle lens at all, and I have found the 17-40 gets used more often than I thought.

You may want to check out the 200 2.8 L if you are getting the L bug, it is quite a performer for it's price tag. I am consistently happy with the 200's performance while using and of course the results are stunning. I think it may actually be a bit less expensive than the 17-40 as well.

I would go for the 17-40. The version that I have is very sharp, colorful, and contrasty. This was my very first L, started my L disease (24-70, 100-400), and you will need to pry it out of my dead fingers in order for me to give it up. It is definately my favorite range, and I almost always have this lens on my camera when I'm walking about the city.

It isn't as fast as a f2.8, but for landscapes/city/street shots, f4 is fine. It is very sharp, even wide open. If you don't want overlap, take a good look at the Tokina 12-24 (cheaper than Canon 10-22, great build quality...as good as the 17-40 I hear)...that will offer you a true wide angle. But think of it this way...as camera bodies get better and better, and full frame will eventually be here, the 17-40 will last longer than your current 1.6x crop dSLR.

Go with the Canon 10-22mm.
You'll only have a 6mm gap between that and your Tamron and the perspective that will be available to you will be greatly expanded.

enzoferrari650 wrote:
I'm now looking at both the 17-40 f4L and the 20-35 f2.8L

Is the extra 3mm focal lengh significant? Which would I be better off getting? I see that 20-35 can be had for less than 500. Which lens has better resale value? Which lens is bigger? Heavier? known problems?

Yep, the 3mm is noticable. Normally I would recommend the 20-35 L over the 17-40 for its optical quality, but if you're needing a wide lens and you're going to stop it down some, then the 20-35 won't be a good choice for you. Plus, the USM in the 17-40 is pretty quick, so its quite a nice bonus.

Well, I have actually gone with the 17-40. I bought one off the forums (should be getting it tomorrow).

Dfresh: I have one slight difference, I am not replacing both the kit lens and tamron with the 17-40 L. I am replacing only the kit lens with the 17-40L so I will have both 17-40 and the tamron 28-75. Use the tamron when I am indoors, use the canon when I am outdoors, or when I need wider than 28 indoors (very rare, only for ocassional group shots).

jackkrash: I don't really want to buy an L lens that overlaps what I have already without replacing it. 200 L would not replace my Sigma 70-200 2.8 because I rarely go all the way to 200. I find the Sigma sharp enough for my purposes, so as long as it is sharp to me, I have no reason to replace that. (I shouldn't say that because I've been thinking about upgrading to 70-200 L IS in the future).

Patrick: Very true about the 17-40 lasting longer than my body. And when I do upgrade to full frame, I doubt I'd have a problem with the 17-40 ever being not wide enough. I have never found my kit lens to be not wide enough for any of my shooting, but then again, I am just a newbie without the experience.

smaniscalco: I simply dont have more than 600 to spare. If I were to go that route, I woud probly just get the Tokina 12-24 with less of a gap. I do hear great things about the canon 10-22 though.

I'd say get the 17-40 anyway. True you have 28-75 at 2.8 if you need the speed... But I am willing to bet the Tamron, while being sharp, won't produce the same picture as the 17-40 L will.... Call it a hunch...

Oops.. didn't read the second page... I am guilty of that a lot.. Maybe if they'd put what page you were on before the quick reply box I'd notice it more.

I think you made a wise decision. Let us know how you like it.

Will do, as soon as I get it tomorrow morning and try it out.

HKram wrote:
70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma

24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron

And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....

To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....



The 70-200 SIgma is an awesome lens, you must have had a bad copy for you not to like it. I will put my sigma against a canon anyday and get same results.

The tamron is an awesome lens and many wedding photographers would rather use it than a canon since it is just as sharp and lighter.

10-22 is an awesome lens, get that do not get the 17-40 as it is too ,much overlap and you wont use your tamron anymore.