7D Should I buy the Canon 17-40 f4.0?

[ScottNelson]

I currently own the Tokina 11-16 and 16-50, which I use on both the 7D and AF100. While the 11-16 is hands-down one of the best lenses I have ever owned, the 16-50 leaves a lot to be desired. I wish I could afford the Canon 16-35 but have an option on a used 17-40 f4.0 that rates quite well. I don't feel the f/4.0 vs. f/2.8 is a real problem with the low noise shown by both cameras with a higher ISO.

Do any of you have experience with the 17-40, both good and bad?


Thanks for all the comments. Since it appears that even the EF-S 17-55 extends when zoomed out, I should learn to live with the Tokina 16-50. I was attracted to the 17-40 because it does not extend but at the cost of 1 f/stop, it doesn't seem worth it. I would put the Tokina, Tamron and Sigma all in the same quality/category.

 

[vision_filmz]

The New Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is probably one of the best Lenses in the normal range.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm...H27K/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1315280861&sr=8-4

If you can find the older Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 it's an excellent lens as well. Many other great choices are the Tamron 17-50mm as well as the Canon 17-55mm

 

[Konrad]

I've had a 17-40 for years and it works well for video on a T2i and now my 60D.

 

[J Davis]

why don't you get the 17-55/2.8 ?

mtf is at the bottom of this link

 

[Samuel H]

if you're not going to use it on full-frame, you'll get better IQ with any of canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC), and maybe also the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...0&Sample=0&CameraComp=474&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0