canon 17-40mm f4l usm

G

gboy

Messages
197
Name
geoff
Edit My Images
No
hi all, bit of advice please. i am a complete novice photographer. would i be able to use this lens with my canon 450d camera. or would i need to be more of a professional. is there a af on it. hope you can help. kindest regards. gboy.
 
gboy said:
hi all, bit of advice please. i am a complete novice photographer. would i be able to use this lens with my canon 450d camera. or would i need to be more of a professional. is there a af on it. hope you can help. kindest regards. gboy.
Click to expand...

You can use it, and it is AF; it would in effect be a 28 - 64 mm lens on your camera.:)
 
i was considering this for my 400d, but figured the tamron 17-50 2.8.

sure the IQ is better on the L but id rather have a faster lens, and its about half the price.

in the nicest possible way, from your own admission your quite new to this, is it a necessity to spend £500 on a lens ? would you really benefit?

that could buy you a decent lens and a load of other useful stuff, remote, bag, flash, memory, batteries etc.

just my opinion, of course do what you like with your money, there is a special "somehting" about L glass :D
 
Though the 17-40 is by all accounts a very good lens indeed, I sort of agree with saxk. For £500 you can get for example the Tamron 17-50 as well as a Canon 55-250 and a 50mm 1.8 Prime. If you're just starting out, it may benefit to see what you can do with a range of focal lengths before deciding where you want to specialise. Then, in your own time, and as and when you feel the need for something more high-end, you can upgrade lens by lens. (Sorry, very whaffley, but I think that makes sense) :)
 
cheers mike, i jsut read my post back to myself and it sounds like im trying to tell him where to spend his money. lol

as you say £500 can buy you all those lenses, you jsut described my entire lens collection(see sig), and i have to say, for a budget amateur, i think what you said and what i have, is a pretty good set of lenses.
 
thank you all for your advice. much appreciated. kindest regards. gboy.
 
The 17-40 is a great lens. A good investment if you ever go full frame. However I would think that you could better invest the money somewhere else at the moment. As you admit you are a bit of a novice at the moment ( and we've all been there) put your money somewhere safe, and acquire a bit more experience, then make a decision.

Most of all enjoy your photography
 
Interesting thread, the 17-40 is a cracking lens, not as quick as a 2.8, but a phenominal L lens, at a great price.
If you are truly a complete novice, have a think about the 17-85 instead.

I have attached 3 links, one on each lens, have a read, plenty to get through !!

17-40 Review - http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

17-85 Review - http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

17-50 Tamron - http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
 
a great lens and will work well on your camera ,I used to have one but px'ed it for a 28-70. nearly bought another last week but went for a 17-35 instead as it is faster and suits my 5D better.
 
I have one of these and I love it. It is a great lens, producing sharp images.
 
It is a great lens and if you already have lenses to cover all the focal lengths you think you will need go fo it! However if you are thinking of it as a straight swap for your only lens then I would advise looking at other options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top