C200: Canon 17-40 F4 verses 17-55 f2.8

D

dharty

Active member
Hello,

Does anyone know how the 17-40 F4 compares to the 17-55 F2.8 in terms of focus speed, tracking, and smoothness on the C200?

Thanks,

Drew Harty
 
Since no one has replied yet.
I haven't done extensive testing between the 17-55 2.8 and 17-40 F4.
To me the focus seems Ok.
There is no vignetting.
The zoom on the 17-55 is very clunky.
The zoom on the 17-40 is still a bit clunky but way smoother than the 17-55.
It has a shorter range and doesn't have IS.
 
The only downside of 17-55 is the zoom ring, very unusable if you do that. A big pro is a larger aperture and IS, and I'm sure IQ is better too, it's great for run'n'gun...
 
Thanks for the information.

With the 16-35 F4 or Sigma 18-35 on a C200, will the IS of 16-35 be much of an advantage over the non IS Sigma for hand held shooting? Could you easily notice the difference in a tracking shot?

From looking at You Tube videos, the 18-35 seems to loose focus when tracking a moving subject. Has anyone else found this using the lens?
 
dharty said:
Thanks for the information.

With the 16-35 F4 or Sigma 18-35 on a C200, will the IS of 16-35 be much of an advantage over the non IS Sigma for hand held shooting? Could you easily notice the difference in a tracking shot?

From looking at You Tube videos, the 18-35 seems to loose focus when tracking a moving subject. Has anyone else found this using the lens?
Click to expand...

For me the whole point of the 18-35 is the f 1.8. I'm not sure I would compare those two particular lenses. I'd much rather have the 17-55 2.8 for handheld than the 16-35 even with its clunkiness. I'll also plug my favorite lens, the 15-85 f3.5-5.6. Smooth zoom, stays constant brightness at 5.6, great image. It vignettes a bit, but I go without UV filter and can live with it. In my book there's not a better run and gun lens when low aperture is not needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top