17-40 f/4L or 17-55 f/2.8

Alright,

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but I have to throw this question out again, because it continues to nag at me regarding my choice of lenses. I also know that most of you underwater guys probably have ff cameras and can not even answer this question. So please, any crop guys out there... have you ever used the EF-S 17-55 underwater for a shark dive or something in that nature? How did it perform? Better yet, have you used a 17-40 as well, and how did the 17-55 compare to that as an underwater zoom lens? I know that James can't help me on this one because he has never used the 17-55, so can anyone out there that has experience with this lens give me a helping hand! The only reason why I'm still nagging away on this issue is because the 17-40 will have so much redundancy with my walkaround 24-105 land lens, where as the smaller aperture of the 17-55 will open up a whole new world to me by giving me a good low light availability lens for above water use? But, how does it do underwater? Keep in mind that I'm already getting either the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 as my WA lens for general use underwater, so the 17-55 or 17-40 would only be for very select dives and I'm not planning on using it as my primary underwater lens. I was thinking either the:

1) Tokina 12-24, Canon EF-S 17-55 and Canon 50 f/1.8 = $1610 No Rebates

2) Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 17-40, Canon 28 f/1.8 and Canon 50 f/1.8 = $1690 After Rebates

3) Canon EF-S 10-22 and Canon EF-S 17-55 = $1690 After Rebates

4) Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 17-40, Canon 20 f/2.8 and Canon 50 f/1.8 = $1710 After Rebates

or

5) Tokina 12-24, Canon 17-40, Canon 20 f/2.8 and Canon 50 f/1.4 = $1710 After Rebates

with options 1 and 3 having a good above water, low light availability lens for indoor events like weddings, church events, or theater events, where as 2, 4 and 5 omit this flexible lens and try and make up for it through some combination of primes. But the root of any of these equations will stem from the comparrison between the 17-40 or 17-55 as a "lesser used" zoom capable lens for dives where some distance might be in effect between myself and my targets?

Thanks for the help!

Erick

Even though I am not a Canon user, I would vote for the 17-55 on option 3 above. I was faced with a similar decision some time ago (between the Nikons 17-35 and 17-55) and chose the 17-55. I really like the longer reach on the 55 end, and the 17-55 is the lens I now use the most topside.

Even though I am not a Canon user, I would vote for the 17-55 on option 3 above. I was faced with a similar decision some time ago (between the Nikons 17-35 and 17-55) and chose the 17-55. I really like the longer reach on the 55 end, and the 17-55 is the lens I now use the most topside.

So you have the Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G? Which looks to be very similiar to the Canon lens that I'm interested in! Have you used it under the waves as well on a few select dives? Did you like the way it performed underwater as well? I already know that either the one that you have, or the one that I'm interested in will be magnificent topside, but how is it to shoot underwater? Do you have a ff camera or a crop?

Thanks a lot,

Erick

Hi Erick, I have it on my D2x (1.5x crop) and yes, I used it underwater. Very sharp, great colors and very fast. I really like it for shark and big fish photography.

Luiz

P.S.: I posted some examples here: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14893

Hi Erick,

You may want to also look at the 17-50mm F2.8 from Tamron and 18-50mm F2.8 from Sigma. I believe the Sigma lens didn't get good reviews but they are, or will soon, release a new 18-50mm F2.8 "macro" zoom which may rectify whatever the problems were. The canon gives you IS as a bonus, but it is a very expensive bonus and when working with strobe the IS doesn't help that much because the flash will freeze the image. Another option is to forget about the midrange zoom altogether and get the 10-22mm canon zoom and the 60mm macro instead. You may even find good uses for that lens topside for close-up shots your 24-105 can't take. With the money you save you should be able to pay for a good number of dives!

Bart

Hi Erick,

 

You may want to also look at the 17-50mm F2.8 from Tamron and 18-50mm F2.8 from Sigma. I believe the Sigma lens didn't get good reviews but they are, or will soon, release a new 18-50mm F2.8 "macro" zoom which may rectify whatever the problems were. The canon gives you IS as a bonus, but it is a very expensive bonus and when working with strobe the IS doesn't help that much because the flash will freeze the image. Another option is to forget about the midrange zoom altogether and get the 10-22mm canon zoom and the 60mm macro instead. You may even find good uses for that lens topside for close-up shots your 24-105 can't take. With the money you save you should be able to pay for a good number of dives!

 

Bart

Hey Bart,

I found both of these lenses reviewed on lensplay, but could only find the Sigma on Fredmiranda? I don't know why they didn't have the Tamron, but you are right, the Sigma had a terrible review! I don't know if the "macro" version will review any better, but I'm not waiting that long before I buy my new toys anyways! I don't know what it is, but the more reviews I read, the more prone to wanting Canon lenses. It seems that whoever gets Canon reports the good side, and usually the worst thing they have to say about a particular lens is "price" as the most heavilly reported con... but I'd personally rather pay more for a quality product that will let you do most of what you try to do then to pay less and not be able to take shots with certainty that they will turn out. As for the 60mm macro, I was thinking of getting some extension tubes for the time being to do some macros, and then when I go to get my housing, hopefully I'll have saved up $1,500 more over the next year to get a few of the little primes as well, including the 60mm macro at that time, so it is in the books, I want to get the Tokina 10-17 as well then, if it reviews well, but that is a year from now! For now I'm puzzling over my current dilema? have you ever used a 16/18-35/55 lens underwater? Curious to hear your personal opinion on any of them?

Thanks for your ideas,

Erick

Hi Erick, I have it on my D2x (1.5x crop) and yes, I used it underwater. Very sharp, great colors and very fast. I really like it for shark and big fish photography.

 

Luiz

 

P.S.: I posted some examples here: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14893

Hey Luiz,

I have been reading the reviews concerning the Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G lens, and it is really a nice lens. I have never looked much beyond Canon lenses before save for the odd Sigma, Tamron or Tokina that someone recommended to me as a third party lens. Does it have a Canon compatible mount? Would it work with the 30D? I see that there is a $40 dollar rebate on it right now, making it $1160, and unlike most Canon lenses, it comes with a lens hood and a 5 year warranty... So not much difference from the Canon 17-55 at $1040 without the hood and 1 year warranty. I like that it is weather sealed, because that is the biggest drawback to the Canon 17-55 in my books! Of course I'd loose IS, but not a big deal at these focal lengths... I have a sneaking suspicion that Canon and Nikon are not compatible though... I'm right aren't I? If so, that is just evil to point me at something that I can not even get!

Erick

To start with I would definitely choose the canon 10-22 as your primary wide angle lens, I have this one myself and it is to my knowledge it is the widest lens for a cropped sensor canon today. It is also very sharp...

Second choice would be the efs-60mm macro, it is a superb underwater lens, sharp and very versatile. You have not listed it in your list but If you do not have a specific reason to get the 50mm lens i would seriosly suggest you to reconsider...

Last choice, the 17-40/4L I dont se that you have a urgent need for this lens considering you already have the 24-105. But if you still want something like this I would choose this one over the efs alternative, image stabilising is not really that useful underwater...

Here the 17-40mm has the advantage that it is a good lens if you one day choose to upgrade to a full sensor camera...

I know I contradict myself by first suggesting efs lenses and the choosing the an L lens for the future fullsensor compatibility, but as I see it today there is no alternative to the 10-22 lens for a cropped sensor camera.

To start with I would definitely choose the canon 10-22 as your primary wide angle lens, I have this one myself and it is to my knowledge it is the widest lens for a cropped sensor canon today. It is also very sharp...

 

Second choice would be the efs-60mm macro, it is a superb underwater lens, sharp and very versatile. You have not listed it in your list but If you do not have a specific reason to get the 50mm lens i would seriosly suggest you to reconsider...

 

Last choice, the 17-40/4L I dont se that you have a urgent need for this lens considering you already have the 24-105. But if you still want something like this I would choose this one over the efs alternative, image stabilising is not really that useful underwater...

 

Here the 17-40mm has the advantage that it is a good lens if you one day choose to upgrade to a full sensor camera...

 

I know I contradict myself by first suggesting efs lenses and the choosing the an L lens for the future fullsensor compatibility, but as I see it today there is no alternative to the 10-22 lens for a cropped sensor camera.

In another thread I was recommended to read an article that was form June 2004, I think, and it was a list of the different gear that professional underwater photographers used. Since they all had ff cameras, the EF-S lenses were not a choice. For their ultra wide (weitwinkel) angle, most seemed to use a 12-24, which I assume is the Tokina lens? Of course with the difference between crop and ff being that of crop cameras having a reduced WA effect, I might really notice that 2mm on the wide end? Many also had either the 17-40 or the 16-35 as well. I really wish that Canon had a EF (L) version of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, then my choice would be easy, but it seems like Canon purposely designs lenses in such away that it is nearly impossible to create a complete lens set that can take care of a wide variety of purposes, and always leaves one needing another! I guess that is good for Canon's sales, but oh so frustrating! Ideally I want a lens which is good for big fish/shark dives, and since that is the same focal length on a crop camera that one would like for an event lens, I would like it to have a f/2.8 for low light conditions, finally, because I'm moving to Kenya in a year and a half it would be a good thing if the lense ad some level of weather sealing... hence the EF 17-55 f/2.8L IS would be my dream lense, and I would be happy to find $1400 to pay for it if it existed... but it doesn't exist. The 16-35 is too wide (for portraight shots at events), the 17-40 is too slow to be a good indoor lens all the time, although it would be a great walk around for tighter environments, and at $590, after rebate, it has been very difficult to resist this lens in search of one that would be better for indoor conditions. I know that I intend on doing mostly outside photography, but in Kenya there also seems to be a wedding, a funeral or a church event every couple of weeks, and it would be nice to be able to shoot it without distracting the service with a flash! As for the recommendation of the 60mm macro. I intend to get it in one year, as well as a fisheye... either a prime fisheye, or the 10-17 Tokina fisheye if it reviews well over this next year, but at right this moment I'm trying to solve a different dilema. I think that the EF-S 17-55 is my only choice given the uses I want this lens choice to fullfill, unfortunately, mostly because of it not being weatherproofed. When I make the move to ff, I intend on keeping my old camera anyways so that I can teach my wife/children how to do photography when I'm not using it as a back up, so the fact that the lenses are EF-S will be a bit annoying, in that I'll have to find appropriate ff replacements for myself, but I will be able to keep the EF-S lenses for the crop camera. So it will reduce my flexibility, but would not be the end of the world. When I make the move to ff in 3-5 years, I'll assume that I have saved up some money and since full frame will make all my lenses wider I'll also pick up the 24-70 f/2.8L for indoor events, the 17-40 f/4L for future use underwater for big fish/shark dives and a big prime like the 400 or the 500 to make up for my telephoto losses by moving to ff. Then I'll still have my 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS as good general walk arounds for either camera. I'll still use the crop as my underwater lens for a couple years, then I'll get a housing for the ff eventually and hope to teach my children Scuba and underwater photography down the road... but that is a long ways away. My oldest is only 2! By the time I get my cameras/housings this far he'll only be 10 at the most, so he could be learning photography by then, but I doubt that he'd be ready to take it diving just yet. So that is the long term plan! I'm sure that you all wanted to hear it.. NOT But at least I have put you inside my head so that you can help me solve my dillema, while knowing how I'm tackling this dillema.

Thanks all,

Erick