Wedding pics taken with a 17-40 F4L

P

Philtrum

Messages
204
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Im seriously looking at adding the 17-40 lens to my kit, it will be used for landscapes but also has to work at a wedding

my current kit is a 70-200 F4L IS and 50mm 1.8, body wise got a full frame and a crop

the base plan is to put the 17-40 on the crop body for general work and then on the 5d for when I want to go mega wide

I'd be real interested in any pics people have taken with the lens, particularly at weddings

If you could spare a moment to post an image that would be fantastic

Cheers
Phil
 
I wouldn't, because (in my opinion) the quality isn't as good as, say, the 24-70L. You'd have to be using the 17-40L at f/8 or smaller to achieve optimum sharpness across the frame.

Also, I'd be very wary of going wider than 24mm on full-frame. Beyond that, anything at the edges of the frame would look stretched and unnatural - faces especially, so group shots would be a bad idea. It's fine if you're looking for extreme wide-angle effects, but I can't see you doing many of those at a wedding.

I'd pay the extra cash and get a 24-70 L - generally regarded as the classic wedding lens. Use it on your 5D for best results.

A.
 
Last edited:
Anorakus said:
I wouldn't, because (in my opinion) the quality isn't as good as, say, the 24-70L. You'd have to be using the 17-40L at f/8 or smaller to achieve optimum sharpness across the frame.

Also, I'd be very wary of going wider than 24mm on full-frame. Beyond that, anything at the edges of the frame would look stretched and unnatural - faces especially, so group shots would be a bad idea. It's fine if you're looking for extreme wide-angle effects, but I can't see you doing many of those at a wedding.

I'd pay the extra cash and get a 24-70 L - generally regarded as the classic wedding lens. Use it on your 5D for best results.

A.
Click to expand...

Agree with that, or even just pay a little extra and get the Canon 28-70mm F2.8L.

I have the 28-70 and the 17-40 and use the 17-40 for about 10-15 shots of the wedding day
Whereas the 28-70 takes 90-95% of the wedding shots.

I use the 17-40 for inside the church for wide shots of everyone in the church
I use the 28-70 for everything and anything really. Macro type shots, portraits, etc, etc
I use the 70-200 for in the church when i'm stood at the back to get close and use it for some work at the reception too but not loads
 
Here's a couple of examples:

horcum.jpg


This is the sort of thing that the 17-40L is best at. Taken at 20mm, f/8.

penalty.jpg


This is a grab shot I did at f/4 at the 40mm end, cropped towards the edge of the frame. Sharpness falls off noticeably towards the lower edge (look at the text on the 'penalty notice'). You wouldn't see this with the 24-70L.

A.
 
I use the 16-35 all the time in weddings.

You just got to know when and where to use it.







Yes there are distortion, but there is no other way to get that in the frame, especially in the dance shot.

That said, i have the 24-70 too.
 
Last edited:
I used to use mine for first dance shots too, as Raymond says, you just need to know when to use them.

I now have the Nikon 14-24mm for the ultra wide stuff. It can be used to very good effect. Ok perhaps stay away from pillars but shots of the venue and first dance shots are very much possible with wider lenses.
 
If I've got this right, the 17-40 would become a 27.2 - 64mm on the crop body (*1.6) and give me almost the 24-70 range and it would loose some of the issues with the clarity at the edges, looking at the 2nd pic by Anorakus the quality at the edges does seem to be a bit of a worry ....

Raymond Lin, thanks for your pics too, the last one is just stunning and thats where my thoughts are, either close portrature with the 70-200 or go nice and wide and correct distortion if needed in pp, however I notice thats with the 16-35 which is just a couple of quid more ;)

J4MIE_P brought up a good point about macro ... Can you any of the wide angle lenses to get a macro style shot of the rings for example ?


Thanks again for everyones pics :D
Phil
 
Philtrum, used a 17-40mm on a variety of crop bodies for years and yes, the zoom range isn't great (equivalent to around 27-64), but it's a bloody good lens in terms of IQ and build quality. Quality probably isn't as good as the 24-70mm but they're incomparable lenses in terms of coverage and maximum aperture.

On a 5D the 17-40mm is a bit mad in terms of perspective distortion but just because it isn't 'classic' in terms of wedding kit, doesn't make it something to stay clear of. It's okay go do something other than the norm in photography now and then.

BTW, anyone who says it's not sharp need their eyes checking; never had a complaint from picture editors, repro technicians or Joe Public through all the time I shot with one for magazines. I doubt wedding punters would be any different...
 
Anorakus said:
You'd have to be using the 17-40L at f/8 or smaller to achieve optimum sharpness across the frame..
Click to expand...

Your having a laugh surely?.. I use mine at f4 and its nothign short of brilliant.. yes f8 might be optimum but theres nothing wrong with f4... in fact nothing wrong is an understatement.. you might want to check your calibration or somehting because your experience with the 17-40 doesnt seem to match up to many others..
 
I 2nd shoot weddings with a 40D & 17-40mm + 5dm2 & 70-200mm. Have a look at my flickr wedding sets to see it in use :)
 
KIPAX said:
Your having a laugh surely?.. I use mine at f4 and its nothign short of brilliant.. yes f8 might be optimum but theres nothing wrong with f4... in fact nothing wrong is an understatement.. you might want to check your calibration or somehting because your experience with the 17-40 doesnt seem to match up to many others..
Click to expand...

:plus1::agree:

Totally.

My 17-40 is a gem, even wide open.

I have recently done a wedding with a 17-40 on a 5D.

Here is one example, although at this stage I do not know what settings were used (can find out this evening when i'm at home)

http://www.andy-foster.co.uk/photo5814944.html

It is incredible on FF. And the 5D can handle high ISO no problem, so even stopping the lens down to say F5.6 ain't a problem.
 
Another vote for the 17-40. Absolutely nothing wrong with its performance.
 
thank you one and all, theres been some stunning images and it shows me that what I want to do is possible, just need to get the lens now
 
If it's on a crop camera, wouldn't the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS be the natural choice - has the benefit of being wider than the 24-70, faster than the 17-40 f/4, and top quality.

Of course I say this as someone who hasn't used one (as I've been full-frame for my whole Canon life), but I was under the impression that was the consensus view?
 
Ah, just realised that it's to be used on crop and full-frame, so my genius suggestion turns out to be not so clever...
 
either way even if its not a genius suggestion its appreciated, I did consider it but then I would not be able to use it on the 5d and go megawide
 
KIPAX said:
Your having a laugh surely?.. I use mine at f4 and its nothign short of brilliant.. yes f8 might be optimum but theres nothing wrong with f4... in fact nothing wrong is an understatement.. you might want to check your calibration or somehting because your experience with the 17-40 doesnt seem to match up to many others..
Click to expand...

dan d said:
Another vote for the 17-40. Absolutely nothing wrong with its performance.
Click to expand...

The pic I posted is an enlargement of a small crop taken from the edge of the frame. Bear in mind that I was using a 5D mk II, which is something of a torture test for any lens at the edges and corners - especiallly if the subject is black text on a bright background, rather than, say, a landscape or portrait.

Rockwell's review of the 17-40mm features an image corner at 17mm and f/4, where the image quality is clearly breaking up. Rockwell still reckons the lens is a top performer, and sensibly points out that zooming in to this extent is not a realistic test.

I'm quite happy with my 17-40, but I realise it has limitations and I don't expect perfection. Landscapes taken with it look great to my eyes :)

A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top