canon 1.4 TC Mk II or 17-40 f4L ?

trapper501

trapper501

Messages
1,175
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Odd option you may think.

Well I was borrowing a 1.4TC which I found worked very well with my 70-200 f4L IS. I like it because it keeps the lens as a lightweight and doesn't appear to lose much in IQ.

I was given £250 to go to buying one for myself as a birthday present, but I could head in a different direction.

I have a 50D and use mainly just two lenses, the 18-55 kit with IS, and my 70-200 f4L IS

so the question is do I go for the TC or take the plunge and upgrade my short zoom (obviously adding more cash myself). If I do that have I chosen the right lens?

I don't do any inside pics at the moment, so f4 doesn't seem to be an issue with me. I have enjoyed the longer lens, and the extra reach of the TC.

I do find, though, that I'm spoiled by the quality of the 70-200 and get a bit critical of the kit lens.
 
... but id say it depends on whether you are happy with your 18-55 results. If you are and you really want more pulling power i'd go for the tc first... but its up to you. you already have 320mm which is enough for many aplications...

If it was me i'd look at my photos... what lens do you use the most... go for the upgrade which covers the most photos... but ballance that up with your need to have more creative options in terms of focal length
 
I use the 18-55 the most and you do notice the difference. The 17-40 doesn't have IS, but then I shouldn't really need that on 40mm.
 
17-40 is a stunning lens but so is the 70-200 with a 1.4 so its a hard call, if you think you need the wide angle more just go for the 17-40, it might be worth comparing the 17-40 and your kit lens and see how you feel about the results before making your mind up. Have a look on the digital picture
 
Digital picture like the 18-55 IS, but compare it to the 17-55 f2.8 as an upgrade option. That is a lot more money than the 17-40 f4 (but does have IS and a longer reach)
 
I'm a bit confused as to why you want to use an ultra wide designed for full frame on a crop body. This just seems daft to me, do you really understand its use?

If you want an ultra wide, get the EFS 10-22, if you want a short zoom, get the EFS 17-55.
 
I have the 17-40 and it's an excellent lens. It's a lot of lens for not that much money in the grand scale of things.

The 1.4TC is a totally different thing though. You need to decide if you are being held back more by the lack of reach on the 70-200 or the quality of the kit lens. Which would you get most use out of?
 
Get the 17-40, flog the kit lens, save, buy teleconverter. Sorted. Just my 5p (I love the 17-40) ;-)
 
To the OP I might have my 17-40 for sale soonish if it's of any interest. Thinking of getting a 16-35 f2.8.
 
Lostgear said:
I'm a bit confused as to why you want to use an ultra wide designed for full frame on a crop body. This just seems daft to me, do you really understand its use?

If you want an ultra wide, get the EFS 10-22, if you want a short zoom, get the EFS 17-55.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who is the most confused here, what is the 17-40 bit of the 17-55 doing that the 17-40 of the 17-40 isn't?

I'd already said that lens was too procy as I didn't need the speed.
 
EMA747 said:
To the OP I might have my 17-40 for sale soonish if it's of any interest. Thinking of getting a 16-35 f2.8.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could tell me a bit about it and the timescale, I'm actively considering my options here (and agreeing about getting both)
 
It's in excellent condition. Lens hood has marks on from normal ware. I am the only owner. Got it new from a local shop in 2008. Everything with it that would be there from new.
I will only be able to say for sure if I am selling when I haev budgeted for other equipment I might buy.


Hodders said:
Is it the extra 1mm or the 2.8 that is causing you to want to change ?
Click to expand...
The 2.8.
 
trapper501 said:
I'm not sure who is the most confused here, what is the 17-40 bit of the 17-55 doing that the 17-40 of the 17-40 isn't?

I'd already said that lens was too procy as I didn't need the speed.
Click to expand...

OK, look at it this way, the 17-40 is an EF lens, ie designed for full frame. You will be paying for glass in the lens which your 50d will not use, the image cast by the lens will fall on a much larger area than your APS-C sensor. These lenses are designed to be sharp and consistent across the full sensor, which is why it is so expensive and which you wont use. The image falling on your sensor will be no better in quality than the image from your 18-55 IS lens.

Also the 17-40 is designed to eliminate barrel distortion on full frame, hence expensive glass at the extreme, which you will not use. The 17-40 is slower at the wide end than your 18-55 and dose not have IS. In all it will be a step back.

Keep your 18-55 and get a 10-22, or as you say, the TC.

Just my tuppence.
 
Lostgear said:
OK, look at it this way, the 17-40 is an EF lens, ie designed for full frame. You will be paying for glass in the lens which your 50d will not use, the image cast by the lens will fall on a much larger area than your APS-C sensor. These lenses are designed to be sharp and consistent across the full sensor, which is why it is so expensive and which you wont use. The image falling on your sensor will be no better in quality than the image from your 18-55 IS lens.
Click to expand...

But that argument extended would mean nobody would ever buy anything other than EF-S lenses for APS-C sensors which is clearly nonsense.

My 70-200 was designed for a full frame camera too.

Lostgear said:
Also the 17-40 is designed to eliminate barrel distortion on full frame, hence expensive glass at the extreme, which you will not use. The 17-40 is slower at the wide end than your 18-55 and dose not have IS. In all it will be a step back.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced I need IS on 40mm. So are you saying that the part of a full frame image that would cover my sensor will be better on the 18-55?

Lostgear said:
Keep your 18-55 and get a 10-22, or as you say, the TC.

Just my tuppence.
Click to expand...

But I'm not looking for an ultra wide angle lens, so a 10-22 isn't what I'm after. I'm considering upgrading my walkaround lens, to what for you would be a 28-64
 
Last edited:
trapper501 said:
But that argument extended would mean nobody would ever buy anything other than EF-S lenses for APS-C sensors which is clearly nonsense.

My 70-200 was designed for a full frame camera too.



I'm not convinced I need IS on 40mm. So are you saying that the part of a full frame image that would cover my sensor will be better on the 18-55?



But I'm not looking for an ultra wide angle lens, so a 10-22 isn't what I'm after. I'm considering upgrading my walkaround lens, to what for you would be a 28-64
Click to expand...

Hey, just giving some advice, go your own way :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top