Got myself a new lens :)

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
I've been hankering after a wide angle lens for a while. Had a little try of the 16-35mm f2.8 and thought it was superb but a tad pricey! I do have a Sigma 15-30mm and although I have managed a few decent-ish shots with it, I've always struggled with CA and flare so it tends to stay behind. Not good for a wide angle!

So I've bought a 17-40 f4:D I've been using my 24-105mm f4 quite a bit and I've fallen back in love with it. So a 17-40mm f4 it is!(y)

Why? well it will have two main uses. The first being an occasional dramatic wedding shot and the regular first dance shots with off camera flash. For those f4 is not going to cause me any problems at all. They will usually have some form of supplimentary lighting.

The second is landscapes. Again f4 is not really the territory of the landscape lens.

Really looking forward to getting my mitts on it! :clap:
 
'grats. I'd get the 16-35L or 14L if I had FF.
 
for what you want it for that sounds perfect :) plus from a quick google is like £500 cheaper lol.

I did eye up the 17-40 once but chose the 17-50 cause it was half the price again lol.
 
I have a 17-40L and it is a joy, if the focal length is what you need you won't regret it. I use mine for landscapes and at the long end where I used to use 50mm on a film camera. It is a lovely lens.
 
I tested both the 16-35 MkI and the 17-40 side by side and walked out of the shop with the 17-40 as, on the samples I tested, it was the better lens...
 
I read a few tests and reviews befor I took the plunge and the 17-40mm came out better than the 16-35mm with DXO and the lovely Mr Rockwell.

In my hands the slight difference won't be worth tuppence never mind £500! :)
 
Love mine on the 40D. Great for round the house shots of the kids. Congratulations to you!
 
One of those occasions where not necessarily the more expensive thing is better.

Countless reviews I've read have said the 17-40 is better than the 16-35.

At that sort of focal length, the extra half-stop isn't really that important anyway.
 
foodpoison said:
One of those occasions where not necessarily the more expensive thing is better.

Countless reviews I've read have said the 17-40 is better than the 16-35.

At that sort of focal length, the extra half-stop isn't really that important anyway.
Click to expand...
Half a stop?
 
good work, been looking to get one myself - just need the funds!;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top