File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Query dear /p/ do any of you have experience with a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM?

I'm looking to replace an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 for my 30D.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>61014

Expensive, large, heavy, and I've found the image quality to be not as great as the price tag (or rave reviews) would make you think. I really can't rave about it like I could the 70-200, which *is* worth the money it cost (which is 2x the 17-40). The lens is also pretty long in the tooth.

I'd look at some of the Sigmas and such. They'll get you 90% there, for half the price. Buy from somewhere that'll let you return it, and buy right before you have a good oppertunity to go play with it.
>> Anonymous
The Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 costs almost $400 less than the Canon, has comparable, or in my copy's case better sharpness than the Canon and is lighter and smaller. The only downside to the Tamron is no full-time manual focus but for $300 I can't complain. And yes, I've owned the Canon.
>> Anonymous
Also, pair the Tamron with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and you've got two lenses for the price of one with more range and faster apertures in both.
>> Anonymous
Is there a reason you don't want an EF-S lens? the 17-85mm Canon is nice and relatively cheap and there are a number of good offerings in the 17-50mm ballpark from Sigma and Tamron.