Walk about lens to suit both 1.3 and 1.6 crop (previously17-40L mki/mkii)

bass_junkie83

bass_junkie83

Messages
4,367
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at getting one of these soon, it will be a second hand one and a couple of people have already told me to make sure i get the newer mkii version.

What are the differences between the mki and mkii, and also when was the switch over?
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I am looking at getting one of these soon, it will be a second hand one and a couple of people have already told me to make sure i get the newer mkii version.

What are the differences between the mki and mkii, and also when was the switch over?
Click to expand...

As above the 17-40mm f4 was released in 2003, don't think there's been an upgrade.

Are you getting confused with the 16-35mm f2.8 The lens has recently been upgraded and yes the Mkii version is the one to go for.
 
Hmm ok. I must have got that confused somewhere along he line then. Cheers.

I'm still not certain it is the right one to go for.
 
as gnom said only a mk1 version.

16-35 f2.8 has mk1 + mk2

and there is a 17-35 f2.8 (now discontinued)


EDIT - too slow
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I'm still not certain it is the right one to go for.
Click to expand...

What feature is it you want that makes you uncertain the 17-40 f/4L is not right? It's one of the most affordable L-lenses with great image quality.

Are you looking for a different focal range? Faster lens? IS? What will you mainly use it for?
 
Well i have just acquired a 1d mk2. And i also have a 40d.

My current lens line up is.

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4

Currently the only usable lens i have for the 1d is the 70-200. So i am looking to sell the sigma and replace it with something that will be suitable for both the 1d and the 40d.

The 17-40 was my instant reaction simply because it as affordable as you say.
It will be fine on the 40d, but i am thinking it might be a bit too wide on the 1d.

I am looking for a general walkabout lens, but i would also like it to be suitable for portraiture, which is why i am thinking the 17-40 would be too wide.
F2.8 would be nice, but not absolutely essential i don't think.

The other two options i guess are the 24-70 and the 24-105.
I'm not sure what their second hand values are like, but i believe it is quite a step up from the 17-40.
 
You could maybe have a look at the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 that people have been talking about here recently.

It looks like it's a good lens and the price is good too.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I am looking for a general walkabout lens, but i would also like it to be suitable for portraiture, which is why i am thinking the 17-40 would be too wide.
F2.8 would be nice, but not absolutely essential i don't think.
Click to expand...

Unless you're doing a lot of "street photography" or landscapes/architecture, then yes, the 17-40 or 16-35 *might* be slightly too wide on the 1D. But it depends on style and preference.

Bear in mind though that for your portrait shots you have your 50mm and the 70-200, which should do fine for that.

Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are great for walkabout and portraits, and having used both I warmly recommend both of them! :)

Of course you could always "section" thing off; so that you use 40D + 17-40 as walkabout, and then 1D + 50 / 70-200 for portraits. But again, it's down to your preference and style.
 
I think that is my problem, i do too much. lol

Architecture, portraiture, low light (with flash so fast/accurate af is more important than large apertures for me) etc. I have also been offered the chance to try out second shooting at some weddings in the future which may have a heavy influence.

I think i should really try and use both before i buy. It's just trying to find someone local that has them.


Having checked completed ebay listings, prices seem to be,
17-40 - £400
24-105 - £600
24-70 - £800


The 17-40 is fine, the 24-105 is do-able, but the 24-70 is a step too far. So that narrows the choice a bit.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I think that is my problem, i do too much. lol
Click to expand...

Well, then the choice is easy - you need EVERYTHING! ;)

bass_junkie83 said:
Having checked completed ebay listings, prices seem to be,
17-40 - £400
24-105 - £600
24-70 - £800


The 17-40 is fine, the 24-105 is do-able, but the 24-70 is a step too far. So that narrows the choice a bit.
Click to expand...

I have never used the 17-40, so can't really comment too much on it - but the 24-105 is a remarkable all-round lens. It *might* be a bit long on it's wide end when used on crop; but overall you can't go wrong with it.

Having said all this though; my general advice is always to try and make the most of what you already have. When you use it for all your interests and you start having to make compromises etc that's when you really start appreciating what you actually "need". It can be argued that any kind of photography can be done with the equipment that you already have, so step back and have a think of the reasons for upgrading.

Of course; "better IQ" is always an acceptable reason... ;)
 
It depends what you want to photograph as a general walkaround lens and which camera you intend to use. As you want a lens which will work on both a 1.3 and 1.6x crop sensor then as you found, the EF-S lenses are not compatiable with the 1D body, so your looking for an EF lens.

If your not too interested in the wider aspects of the lens, then something like the 24-70mm f2.8 would sit nicely paired with your 70-200mm f4, although it is a large heavy lens and as you've found not cheap.

The 24-105mm f4 and 17-40mm f4 are both nice lenses, but both have their issue at the extremes, although the crop sensor does reduce these effects and the 17-40mm can be abit soft wide open and perhaps abit short for a walkaround lens.

I have the 24-105mm f4 on my 1D, but I'm very tempted with the 24-70mm f2.8 and if I had the money, I would also go for the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S lens for my 1.6x crop body, as that's a perfect walkaround lens for the small sensor bodies.
 
Well i think i have made a decision. Not entirely 100% certain, but close. :)

I am now thinking of selling the sigma 18-50, but also the tokina 11-16 and the 40d. Then with that i can purchase a 5d classic and a 17-40L and it should actually cost me a fair bit less than the original lens change i was looking at.

Between the full frame and 1.3 crop bodies, that should give me quite a nice coverage from ultra wide to medium telephoto using the 17-40, 50 and 70-200.

Then possibly look at a long term plan of swapping the 17-40 out with a 16-35 and a 24-70. But i don't even want to think about that yet. :lol:
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Well i have just acquired a 1d mk2. And i also have a 40d.

My current lens line up is.

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4

Currently the only usable lens i have for the 1d is the 70-200. So i am looking to sell the sigma and replace it with something that will be suitable for both the 1d and the 40d.

The 17-40 was my instant reaction simply because it as affordable as you say.
It will be fine on the 40d, but i am thinking it might be a bit too wide on the 1d.

I am looking for a general walkabout lens, but i would also like it to be suitable for portraiture, which is why i am thinking the 17-40 would be too wide.
F2.8 would be nice, but not absolutely essential i don't think.

The other two options i guess are the 24-70 and the 24-105.
I'm not sure what their second hand values are like, but i believe it is quite a step up from the 17-40.
Click to expand...

You have nearly answered your question. I firmly believe 24-70 or 105 is the answer depending if IS and 105mm or f2.8 is more important.

In fact you have 3 usable lenses for 1D: 70-200, 50mm prime and Tokina. Tokina is absolutely fine from around 14mm to 16mm on 1D, and it will NOT hit the mirror ever.

BTW. Sigma 18-50 is far better than their 24-70mm, so don't even contemplate it unless you are into newer but still far from perfect HSM version.
 
Ok, fully usable then.

I know the tokina is ok down to 14mm, and it's very nice. But the environment in which i need uwa is very dark, hectic and fast pased. And having a lens i have to think too much with or can't wind all the way open is going to be a major disadvantage to me.

I've not used any of the sigma full frame stuff though, so it would be interesting to have a play.

I think my chaqnging of bodies is going to be a good solution.
 
I have both a 17-40L and a 16-35L Mk2, as I do not need the f2.8 I am selling the 16-35L mk2.

The images from the 17-40L are almost identical to the f2.8 but with a little less vignetting and less weight.

At the moment I have a FF, 1.3x & 1.6x and they are both great on all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top