So here is my situation, I am currently using my kit lens to cover the wide spectrum, and my tamron 28-75 to cover midrange and my sigma 70-200 to cover the telephoto. I am looking to replace the kit lens with something of higher quality. I am really interested in the 17-40 f4L after hearing great things about it. I've never tried an L lens and I would really love to do so. My budget is about 600 dollars, and I'm looking to buy used.
I'm looking for suggestions or comments as to whether this would be the right thing to do. I find that I do not really need a fast lens at the wide spectrum so that's why I am thinking about the 17-40 f4L. When I do shoot indoors, I do all of it with my 28-75 tamron f2.8 and my 50 1.8.
What are my other options or is this the best choice?
bit of a boring choice if you already have the 28-75... i would go for the tokina 12-24 for something a little more exciting. Still has the good built quality and constant f4 of the 17-40. I doubt if you will miss the 24-28 gap
I'm now looking at both the 17-40 f4L and the 20-35 f2.8L
Is the extra 3mm focal lengh significant? Which would I be better off getting? I see that 20-35 can be had for less than 500. Which lens has better resale value? Which lens is bigger? Heavier? known problems?
The 17-40 is a great all around workhorse lens. I took an informal survey here at FM of everyone's "favorite Canon lens." While many named their favorite Canon lens as the more exotics lenses, (and the costlier 24-70 was near the top of the list), the 17-40 was still frequently referred to one of the most used lenses.
I have not seen nearly as many complaints about it as I have seen about the 24-70, 16-35's on here.
Check out this thread showing a model shot with the 17-40 - absolutley stunning.
70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma
24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron
And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....
To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....
HKram wrote:
70-200F4 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Sigma
24-70 could have been a suggestion - you killed it with a Tamron
And Canon does not have a real wide angle with the red line!!?? Have heard the Canon 10-22 is pretty much an L. Maybe you could give them a little leeway....
To your qtn, the 17-40 does have a huge overlap with the 28-75. If you dont have the kit lens, maybe its a good idea.....OK, you do have the kit lens also. Save your money Or buy me a lens....
Haha. Yeah I also thought about replacing the tamron with the canon 28-70 and then keeping the kit lens, but seeing that my tamron is plenty sharp, I have no reason to do so.
My other option is to get the 20-35 f2.8 and keep my kit lens as well since it can be had for under 500.
Otherwise, I would sell my kit lens and replace it with the 17-40 f4L.
I have the 17-40 and the Tamron. I use both and they are both great lenses. I would hate to be forced to choose only one of them. I sold a 20-35 f3.5-4.5 to buy the 17-40. The 20-35 was a very nice lens, but yes, the extra 3 mm makes a big difference.
The 17-40 takes wonderful pics and you won't regret buying one.
I tried a friend's 17-40 last Sunday in low light in my living room. Obviously shutter speeds were slower than my Tamron 28-75, but colors seemed richer and more saturated. Great lens. Too bad Canon doesn't have a 17-50 version as I find the 17-40 slightly lacking in reach to make an all around lens.
i was in the same situation as you enzoferrari650, so i went ahead and bought the 17-40 to first get a taste of the L's (and see if the hype is true), and to see if it could replace my tamron + kit lens combo.
to be honest i don't know what to think because both have their advantages. currently i haven't made up my mind which to keep (whichever gets sold will fund a sigma 70-200 f2.8), but here's a list of pros/cons for each that i've found you may want to consider:
17-40L:
pros: very sharp wide open, colors are more vibrant, bokeh 'smoother' at f4
cons: 40mm isn't long enough for a walkaround, 40mm-70mm focal length gap (although i have a 50mm f1.8)
kit lens + tamron 28-75 combo
pros: longer reach, f2.8 can come in handy if you have a sharp version
cons: kit lens needs to be stopped down for sharpness on wide end, my tamron is sharper at f4 although usable at f2.8 so i'm mostly shooting at f4
obviously my findings will vary from yours or anyone else's depending on whether or not you have a good copy, but i thought i'd throw them out there since we're in the same boat
The kit lens is nowhere near as wide as the 17-40. I think the max view angle on the kit lens is something like 75 degrees, and the 17-40 is [EDIT] 104 degrees. On the 300D, the 18-55 did not seem like a wide angle lens at all, and I have found the 17-40 gets used more often than I thought.
You may want to check out the 200 2.8 L if you are getting the L bug, it is quite a performer for it's price tag. I am consistently happy with the 200's performance while using and of course the results are stunning. I think it may actually be a bit less expensive than the 17-40 as well.
I would go for the 17-40. The version that I have is very sharp, colorful, and contrasty. This was my very first L, started my L disease (24-70, 100-400), and you will need to pry it out of my dead fingers in order for me to give it up. It is definately my favorite range, and I almost always have this lens on my camera when I'm walking about the city.
It isn't as fast as a f2.8, but for landscapes/city/street shots, f4 is fine. It is very sharp, even wide open. If you don't want overlap, take a good look at the Tokina 12-24 (cheaper than Canon 10-22, great build quality...as good as the 17-40 I hear)...that will offer you a true wide angle. But think of it this way...as camera bodies get better and better, and full frame will eventually be here, the 17-40 will last longer than your current 1.6x crop dSLR.
Go with the Canon 10-22mm.
You'll only have a 6mm gap between that and your Tamron and the perspective that will be available to you will be greatly expanded.
enzoferrari650 wrote:
I'm now looking at both the 17-40 f4L and the 20-35 f2.8L
Is the extra 3mm focal lengh significant? Which would I be better off getting? I see that 20-35 can be had for less than 500. Which lens has better resale value? Which lens is bigger? Heavier? known problems?
Yep, the 3mm is noticable. Normally I would recommend the 20-35 L over the 17-40 for its optical quality, but if you're needing a wide lens and you're going to stop it down some, then the 20-35 won't be a good choice for you. Plus, the USM in the 17-40 is pretty quick, so its quite a nice bonus.
