Canon 17-40mm questions

mcneep

mcneep

Messages
730
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm trying to work out how much use a 17-40mm would get :thinking:

I have the 24-105mm and I dont know if the range between 17-24 is worth spending the extra £515 for.

Can any one post some pictures that they have taken at the range 17-24mm?

Thanks
 
Guess it depends what you shoot. For me it's my standard walkabout lens in town or countryside. Pics? These were taken with this lens:

@17mm
_MG_2295.jpg


@19mm
IMG_7152.jpg


@25mm
IMG_7119.jpg
 
showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]

Blows up right nice too :)

17-40mm on a 1DsII
 
This lens seems sooo good - think it will be my next purchase. Must be good you don't see too many going 2nd hand
 
Nothing to do with the subject matter, but that's Anglesey Abbey isn't it?

Only been there once, but the second image looks like the Lode that leads down to the water mill, got a very similar shot myself
 
I've got the 17-40, but my next lens up is a 50mm, however as suggested above, as you are using a 1.6x crop body why not consider the 10-22 (or Sigma 10-20)? No overlap, cheaper and more importantly, wider!
 
It will be crop and ff.

5d Mk2 and 7D will be here this week hopefully.

Also have the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS (my new toy :D)
 
Which won't fit the 5DII :)

On that sensor 17-40 will be brill!
 
fatphotographer said:
If I where you, I would go for the 10-22, then you have no guilt for overlapping focal lengths. As soon as you start shooting wide angle, you will wonder why you didn't do it years ago.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, the 10-22mm is too limited and you get the fisheye effect, especially at the 10mm lens where the lens is strongest optically.

The 17-40mm f4 L or 17-55mm f2.8 would be better lenses. Yes the 10-22 gives you that 16-35mm frame range on a cropped sensor, but practically you would get more use out of the 2 lenses above if you want landscape capability and also very good walk around lenses.

Personally, I don't know why people with a cropped sensor go for the 24-105mm f4, fantastic lens, don't get me wrong, but for full frame. You limit its capabilities on a crop sensor body and then have to buy another lens to fill the gap, because you've lost the wide angle capability of this lens.
 
Peter, I also will have the 5D mk2.

But I dont know how used full the extra 7mm will be.

Trying to weight up wether I would use it enough to justify the £500
 
I have the 17-40 on my 5D2 and it is superb. It works very well on FF bodies, stopped down slightly it is very sharp indeed. I seem to use it more than my 24-105, and have been experimenting at the wide end and it is great fun to use. Go for it!
 
Three simple questions

Do you take a few paces back to obtain the shot?
Are you able to take a few paces back?
Do you lose a shot because you cant take a few paces back?
 
dcash29 said:
Do you take a few paces back to obtain the shot?
Can you take a few paces back?
Do you lose a shot because you cant take a few paces back?
Click to expand...

That is an option, but I always feel that the "feel" of the pictures is difinitely different when you are "in close" with an ultra wide angle lens.
 
That is an option, but I always feel that the "feel" of the pictures is difinitely different when you are "in close" with an ultra wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

Like more distortion?
 
Taken today on a FF body (1Ds MKIII)

17-40 F4L 1.6 sec @ f22 ISO100

1DSL1950s.jpg
 
If you wanted reaaaaaaally wide, you could consider the sigma 12-24mm, it fits a crop +FF bodies-but you can't attach filters to it (front element bulges too far)
 
80% the amount of the environment that is included in the shot compared to a lens with a narrower view taken from further back
Click to expand...
?

I can't see why people go for the 17-40mm f4 for a crop body. There are very good 17-50mm f2.8's giving a greater zoom range and a wider aperture.

To me the 17-40mm only makes sense on full frame.
Click to expand...
the OP has both plus i guess people buy ready for FF
 
I would consider it if it wasn't f/4, so now looking at the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, a little more expensive :(
 
woof woof said:
Ah! You have FF too!
Click to expand...

:D yep, I was running 1D 111 bodies with a 17-40, when Nikon gave me a D3 with a 14-24. The diference it made was astonishing, and the customers reacted positively to the extra impact the pictures have.

When I sent the Nikon back, I bought the 10-22 and made it fit the 1.3 crop body. After 14 years of shooting 2x 1.5 then 1.3 cropped bodies, FF with wide angle opened up a whole new way of taking pictures for me.

The whole point of going wide is to include as much of the scene as pos from the place you take the picture, why stop at 24mm? As soon as you start using the 17-40, you will love it. I couldn't warrant the 16-35, but I would say you will get a lot of use out of it's baby brother.
 
How about adding this to the equation.....

The 24-105 shows barrel distortion between 24 and about 35mm, particularly noticeable if the horizon is visible (eg seascapes).

If you use the 17-40 in this range you'll get a nice straight horizon.

At the wide end the 17-40 also shows BD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top