17-40L

A

Albedo

Messages
363
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
For those who have one or have used one, will I find this too short as a walkabout lens for street photography with a 40D?

I want it for it's build quality as I plan to take some travel photos and it should be good for architecture and landscapes. I've also been into Jessops to have a play and I like the feel of it, etc. My main worry is the length at 40mm not being quite long enough to isolate shots.

Any thoughts? Thanks! (y)
 
The 40mm isn't quite narrow enough to isolate shots, your right, but it's lovely and wide, excellent for architecture and landscapes as you said.

It's a great lens, but if your looking for something longer then perhaps a 24-105 L or 24-70 L?

I sometimes find my 17-40 kinda restrictive in some situations, but I bought it to be ultra-wide, which it is.
 
I use a 17-40mm on the 1D, so it's effectivley even shorter! It does it's job brilliantly well, but it's a wide angle first and foremost. The build is amazing, and very solid. AF speed is perfect, it's vewry sharp and the colours are wonderful. Can't fault it in any practical aspect.

When I had the 40D I found the 28-70mm a better range for walking around, longer would be better for street where you can't get too in peoples faces. Indoors it's a different story, the 17-40mm is wonderful, expecially with a flashgun to take the edge off it only being f/4.

17mm on the 40D is good for landscape, if a little long. There isn't one lens that will do it all. the 10-22mm and a 24-105mm would do landscape and street.

Hope that helps!

Paul
 
Can't really afford the 24-105mm at the moment. Do you find it restrictive in that it lacks narrowness at the long end? The upside is that I feel it'd make me more willing to be open about taking shots in the street whereas 105mm is easier to hide behind!
 
Albedo said:
Can't really afford the 24-105mm at the moment. Do you find it restrictive in that it lacks narrowness at the long end? The upside is that I feel it'd make me more willing to be open about taking shots in the street whereas 105mm is easier to hide behind!
Click to expand...

Outside, yes definitely. But I don't do much of this style (street), and I can use my 50mm or 85mm when needed. Also depends if you want to do groups or isolate faces, etc. If you dont mind getting close, 40mm will do fine. Inside I find 40mm is long enough too.


Paul
 
I have the 17-40 and it's probably the only thing in my bag that hasn't been replaced. It's seen action on 3 bodies now and it still amazes me with the colour rendition and sharpness.

Now it's being used on a FF body it really is wide, but a little short for an all day walk around.

Why not hire one for a week from Stewart and see if it suits you.
 
To be honest, the 17-40 is a great lens. But if you want it for street photography wait and get the 24-105 f4. You'll be wasting you money on the wrong lens otherwise.
 
natjag said:
To be honest, the 17-40 is a great lens. But if you want it for street photography wait and get the 24-105 f4. You'll be wasting you money on the wrong lens otherwise.
Click to expand...

You see I'd have thought that the 17-40 would be THE lens for "street" stuff on the 40D. In the olde days, it's style that grew up with snappers wielding rangefinders sporting wide or standard lenses. Stuff from 21mm, through 35mm to 50mm mostly. :shrug:

You could go on to say that a DSLR is what's not really the tool for the job. It'll do of course but I'd rather shoot on a Contax G2 with some Tmax. :D
 
natjag said:
To be honest, the 17-40 is a great lens. But if you want it for street photography wait and get the 24-105 f4. You'll be wasting you money on the wrong lens otherwise.
Click to expand...

This would be my advice too. I have both and the 24-105 is rarely off my camera. It has IS and is just about wide enough for landscapes, but a perfect walkabout lens. If I could have only one lens it woukd be this one as an 'all rounder'.

 
I've just sold my Canon 17-40mm (Great lens) but like many others the 40mm was not wide enough, so I purchased a Sigma 17-70mm, this also is a great lens and I get a lot more use from it.
Brian
 
At the risk of sounding like a pimp, why not hire one for a week or two and find out whether it suits your style?

Personally, I think 40mm is fine for a lot of general purpose use. It's equivalent to 64mm on full-frame, and remember, in the old days SLRs used to come with a 50mm prime, so by that standard you're not lacking in length. And I'd miss not having the 17mm wide end much more than I'd miss extra length. (But on the other hand, if you want to take discreet candids in the street, then you might find it a bit restrictive.)
 
digitalfailure said:
I have the 17-40 and it's probably the only thing in my bag that hasn't been replaced. It's seen action on 3 bodies now and it still amazes me with the colour rendition and sharpness.

Now it's being used on a FF body it really is wide, but a little short for an all day walk around.

Why not hire one for a week from Stewart and see if it suits you.
Click to expand...
So when you were using it on (I presume) a crop camera, how did you feel about it as a walkabout lens?
 
Bump: just want to see if anyone else has one and what they make of its range.

Stewert: hiring one is tempting, but I'm pushing the outer edges of my budget as it is, and a re-sale could get me pretty much 100% of my money back anyway, so I think I'll risk it!
 
I've got one and whilst it's a great lens it is pretty short. I only use it when I know I'm going to be in close. For street, as has already been said, I'd have thought the 24-105 would be a better choice.
 
StewartR said:
It's equivalent to 64mm on full-frame
Click to expand...

no, the 17-40 gives exactly that on a full frame body, you meant to say it gives an fov equivalent to 64mm on a crop sensor i think.

Albedo said:
So when you were using it on (I presume) a crop camera, how did you feel about it as a walkabout lens?
Click to expand...

I loved it then, I love it now.....but it's limited by it's short range, for street or people stuff i tend to keep my 70-200 on as I can stay out of the way and get the image i want without the hassle of being spotted / stopped.
 
digitalfailure said:
no, the 17-40 gives exactly that on a full frame body, you meant to say it gives an fov equivalent to 64mm on a crop sensor i think.
Click to expand...


:thinking: Perhaps what StewartR ment was that you would need a 64mm on a full frame to get the same FOV at long end of the 17-40mm when fitted on a 40D.
 
Albedo said:
Why's that?
Click to expand...

It is only really sharp in the center and not in the corners. There is quite alot of CA towards the edge the frame. There is so much distortion it is not funny towards the wide end. It is weather sealed, but due to the hood design it is almost completely useless in the rain (water on front element). It is actually really soft compared to a Leica/Zeiss 28 or Zeiss 25, any of which are actually cheaper then the Canon new.

But with all these limitations, i still own mine, cause there is nothing that is AF in an EOS mount that is that much better (other then maybe a really good Sigma 12-24).
 
Brianb said:
I've just sold my Canon 17-40mm (Great lens) but like many others the 40mm was not wide enough, so I purchased a Sigma 17-70mm, this also is a great lens and I get a lot more use from it.
Brian
Click to expand...

I would like to correct myself when I said the "40mm was not wide enough" I should have said not long enough.
The Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 Macro gives the wide angle I had with the Canon, but give that added length with the 70MM.
Brian
 
cause there is nothing that is AF in an EOS mount that is that much better (other then maybe a really good Sigma 12-24).
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised by that comment. I've yet to see anyone show me a better image from a 12-24 than mine will produce and my 17-40 is leagues ahead in every measurable sense.

The 17-40 is not perfect it's true, there is some distortion but 17 is really very wide and some barreling is tolerable.

Going back the "is it good for street" question. I still think it's the perfect range, as to me "street photography" is about getting in amongst what you are documenting and shooting from the inside.

If you want to shoot more voyeuristic, spy shots then of course you'll need a more snipper orientated focal length. :)
 
dazzajl said:
I'm really surprised by that comment. I've yet to see anyone show me a better image from a 12-24 than mine will produce and my 17-40 is leagues ahead in every measurable sense.

The 17-40 is not perfect it's true, there is some distortion but 17 is really very wide and some barreling is tolerable.
Click to expand...

It really does depend on what you are going to use the image for, and how much time you have to sit there and edit an image so that it usable for your purpose.

All the images from the 12-24 I owned at around the 17 end were so much better then the 17 end of my 17-40. Actually I forgot that the best lens in this range might actually be the Sigma 15-30, but it has no HSM, and that kind of kills it for me.

Some distortion at the wide end might be ok, but spend 10-15 minutes in DXO per image bad is unacceptable for me.
 
I do see where you're going but if the image quality and lack of distortion were that important, I wouldn't be shooting it on a rigid body camera, or using canon/sigma lenses.

You're comments do make me wonder if your 17-40 is entirely well?? :shrug:
 
dazzajl said:
You see I'd have thought that the 17-40 would be THE lens for "street" stuff on the 40D. In the olde days, it's style that grew up with snappers wielding rangefinders sporting wide or standard lenses. Stuff from 21mm, through 35mm to 50mm mostly. :shrug:

You could go on to say that a DSLR is what's not really the tool for the job. It'll do of course but I'd rather shoot on a Contax G2 with some Tmax. :D
Click to expand...

I knew a guy who used a 10-22 as a walkaround lens. And I don't mean just landscape and architecture shots, but a 'real' walkaround. Awesome shots, though. But I tell ya, it's hard.
 
dazzajl said:
I do see where you're going but if the image quality and lack of distortion were that important, I wouldn't be shooting it on a rigid body camera, or using canon/sigma lenses.

You're comments do make me wonder if your 17-40 is entirely well?? :shrug:
Click to expand...

No my 17-40 is good, and if you saw a print from it you might think it is ok, but I guess I just have higher standards.

I do concede your point on the 35mm system, but I shoot travel, and when I am walking around a city for 8 hours a day, I don't really have the time or the energy left to setup a view camera every few minutes. I am still trying to find the best wide angle solution that will be able to carried around for 8-10 hours a day.
 
FranchiseJuan said:
but I guess I just have higher standards.
Click to expand...

Because you use a lens that I don't consider good to enough to serve clients with. Yeah... OK. :LOL:

I don't generally do stropy replies or bother getting on a small pony, let alone a high horse but I do not leave my professional integrity being questioned.

Do you NEED to shoot digital images for your travel stuff?

I know this is drifting way OT but there are some superb rangefinder systems out there that were born for travel. My fave is the contax G2 but if you want something bigger, then the pentax 6*7 is the daddy of travel.
A hassy Xpan might open up some interesting doors too. :)
 
dazzajl said:
Because you use a lens that I don't consider good to enough to serve clients with. Yeah... OK. :LOL:

I don't generally do stropy replies or bother getting on a small pony, let alone a high horse but I do not leave my professional integrity being questioned.
Click to expand...

This is a very good reason why I should never reply to posts at night when I am doing 10 other things at the same time, and have a slight head cold.

That sentence should have read 'I have high standards'. I did not mean in any way to offend you. If i have I apologise.

I have for quite a long time tried to convince myself to go for some thing like a xpan, or even something like a M8. I even considered a Hassy V (lovely 40), or larger. Eventually I decided I want to stay with shooting digital for this stuff, and try to use alternate lenses where i needed to fill the gaps. This was mainly a workflow decision, but also I wanted to enjoy the experience of shooting more and be in the moment (to create better images), then to constantly curse the fact that my back hurts.

But at this point we are getting way off topic from what the original poster asked, and all this is my personal opinion anyway, so i will just shut up now. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top