I'm about to pull the trigger on my new Canon kit, 40D, 70-200 f4, 60 2.8 macro and either a 17-55 or 17-40. I'm not sure if I need the extra speed of the 17-55 but my main issue is it's build quality. What is the build quality like? I don't want it to be like the 17-85 which in my opinion is a bit flimsy. I understand it wont be like the 17-40 though.

Also can the 430ex II or 580 ex II be activated remotely by the 40D's onboard flash?

Lens: BQ of the 17-40 is better than the 17-55 but the BQ of the 17-55 is still very good. Caveat: I am prejudiced. I love the 17-55. I traded my 24-105 for it and later sold my 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 as they became redundant.

Flash: That is not possible in Canon.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Well the 17-55 certainly doesn't feel that its going to fall apart any minute. Yes it should feel better built for the money but then it is a very good lens that ould make a very good adition to your lineup. Also that extra 15mm might make alot of difference as will the 1 stop extra.

As for the flash, as Yakim said this is not a canon possible thing on any of there bodies. The smalest/lightest way is to get an ST-E2 flash master. or failing that you need a 550ex/580ex/580EX2 as the master on camera and any of those or the 430/420 as slaves

Personally I don't see the point in the 17-40 when there are so many great copies of the 17-35L going for roughly the same price. That said, if my lens purchases weren't tied to a desire to eventually go full-frame, I'd take the 17-55 for the stop and the IS, which I think is an undervalued feature on a wide angle. Not necessary, but handy.

freaklikeme wrote:
Personally I don't see the point in the 17-40 when there are so many great copies of the 17-35L going for roughly the same price.

I had both. The 17-40 had better IQ. Is it a good enough point?

freaklikeme wrote:
That said, if my lens purchases weren't tied to a desire to eventually go full-frame, I'd take the 17-55 for the stop and the IS, which I think is an undervalued feature on a wide angle. Not necessary, but handy.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

If you are going with a 1.6 crop body like the 40D, then get the 17-55IS. More
versatile lens than the 17-40L, and generally sharper.

I just spent the day with my new 17-55. Except for a bit of a "drop" in pressure when zooming from 20mm to 17mm, everything felt smooth and solid.

As expected in an HSM lens, focusing was very fast and totally silent. There was a bit of noise from the stabilizer, but nothing to worry about.

Yes, it's a bit pricey for a non-L lens, but I think it's a good value. (I have to get new filters now, though; I have none in 77mm.)

Yakim Peled wrote: ...I love the 17-55. I traded my 24-105 for it and later sold my 35/1.4...

LOL. I just bought the 17-55 and the 35/1.4L.

Well, you'll just have to wait and see how things evolve for you. It took me more than 6 months to decide to sell it.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Because I found the decision so hard I ended up getting the IS version of the 70-200 f4, 100 2.8 macro and a 430ex II. That will buy me some time deciding. The 17-35 2.8 sounds good though.

Yakim Peled wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
Personally I don't see the point in the 17-40 when there are so many great copies of the 17-35L going for roughly the same price.

I had both. The 17-40 had better IQ. Is it a good enough point?

freaklikeme wrote:
That said, if my lens purchases weren't tied to a desire to eventually go full-frame, I'd take the 17-55 for the stop and the IS, which I think is an undervalued feature on a wide angle. Not necessary, but handy.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


That doesn't help me see the point, no. My 17-35 at f/4 is every bit as good as the 17-40s I tested. And I'd much rather have the extra stop than the extra range.

pahrens wrote:
Also can the 430ex II or 580 ex II be activated remotely by the 40D's onboard flash?
No. That feature is not available with Canon. Nikon offers it on some of their models.

I used to have a Nikon D200 so I guess I just thought those things where pretty standard, it doesn't bother me though, I've just bought the off camera cable as well. I must admit I'm very happy with my decision to go with Canon, the body is just so much more logical to me. After being with pentax than nikon, I believe Canon will be the one I stick with.

I used to own D300s. Using the built-in flash as a remote trigger sounds appealing at first, but in practice it caused eye-blink in subjects more often than not... so I think an infrared trigger is preferred anyway. (The Nikon trigger is newer and more full featured than Canon's, but that's another story.)

The 17-55 is built well enough, though not as solid as the 'L's or the Nikkor 17-55. Optically it's 'L' quality for sure; my copy is deadly sharp on the 50D, not an easy feat for all lenses.

17-55mm is a much much better choice for crop bodies than 17-40mmL. Better optical performance, Image stabilization,constant F2.8. The only downside is the price.

phillipyan wrote: 17-55mm is a much much better choice for crop bodies than 17-40mmL. ...The only downside is the price.

B+H has a $70.00 "Instant Rebate" going on at the moment.

I didn't know that when I bought mine locally on Monday. I'll have to see if there's any way I can take advantage of it after the fact.

freaklikeme wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
Personally I don't see the point in the 17-40 when there are so many great copies of the 17-35L going for roughly the same price.

I had both. The 17-40 had better IQ. Is it a good enough point?

freaklikeme wrote:
That said, if my lens purchases weren't tied to a desire to eventually go full-frame, I'd take the 17-55 for the stop and the IS, which I think is an undervalued feature on a wide angle. Not necessary, but handy.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


That doesn't help me see the point, no. My 17-35 at f/4 is every bit as good as the 17-40s I tested. And I'd much rather have the extra stop than the extra range.


Then you were much luckier than I.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.