[peewee]

Hi Guys,

I've got a 17-85mm IS lens atm and looking to upgrade, the 17-40mm L looks the next step without spending stupid money on the top L class. What are peoples opinions on this lense the reviews are very good for it.

Cheers Pete

[Paul B]

SCIENCE says its every bit as good (if not better) than the even more expensive 16-35 unless you 'need' that extra stop.

Having said that I'd consider the Tokina 17-35 amongst other things.

Which body are you intending to use it on? If its crop then maybe some form of DX glass might be better.

[peewee]

It's a 600D body.

[Paul B]

It's a 600D body.

Why make things heavier than they need to be? The Canon 17-55 gets good reviews and by all accounts deserves a red ring. Other than that, the  Tokina 12-24? I'd avoid the extra weight of FF glass unless there's a need (i.e. you've got designs on going FF).

[nic mullin]

Hi Pete,

The 17-40 has a good rep for image quality and handled well when I tested one (decided not to buy it though), and will carry over if you upgrade to a full frame body in the future, but doesn't do anything different to what your 17-85 does - it's sharper, but still only f/4 and has less range and no IS.

I went for the 17-55 f/2.8 instead - it's a bit faster and sharper than what you've already got, but like your 17-85 won't mount on an FF body. I'd look at one of these over the 17-40 if you want a straight upgrade to your 17-85 and you're not looking to move to FF anytime soon. The downside is it's quite big and heavy, plus they don't come up second hand very often so you might need to wait to find one for sub £500.

Hope that helps,

Nic

[peewee]

Thanks for the advice, hadn't considered the 17-55mm, might go for the 17-40 as they are going for £475ish as opposed to £580 for the 17-55. Although the extra few stops would come in handy. I've got a 50mm 1.8 so that would do if i needed anything over 40mm.

Pete