fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
  

Archive 2009 · 17-40L or ...?

  
 
Jacob D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · 17-40L or ...?


So what do you folks think is the best zoom to put on a 5D in this focal length? I don't need or want a f/2.8 lens unless it's lighter and costs less... so in other words... not looking for an f/2.8 zoom


Thanks for your input.



Nov 02, 2009 at 10:09 PM
jrscls
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · 17-40L or ...?


Then 17-40 should work well for you.


Nov 02, 2009 at 10:22 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 17-40L or ...?


17-40, clear case for you.


Nov 02, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Jacob D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · 17-40L or ...?


Probably should have mentioned I'm open to "alt gear" suggestions, but the 17-40L was the lens that I had in mind.


Nov 02, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · 17-40L or ...?


You've answered your own question - 17-40L is hard to beat in an UWA zoom. Can't think of anything that's not f/2.8 that's better in a zoom.


Nov 03, 2009 at 12:18 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · 17-40L or ...?


Apart from the 16-35/17-35 what other options exist?

17TSE, 12-24 sigma... Sigma do a 15-30 and a 17-35 also ...



Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Ernie King
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · 17-40L or ...?


I've had the 17-40 for 4 years now and been very happy with it. Never missed 2.8 for what I shoot.


Nov 03, 2009 at 12:39 AM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · 17-40L or ...?


RobDickinson wrote:
Apart from the 16-35/17-35 what other options exist?


I own the Canon EF 20-35 F/3.5-4.5. I like it a lot and it can be had for < $200 used from places like KEH. Unfortunately, it is missing a few mm of focal length on both the short and long end, but on the bright side, it's much smaller than the 17-40 (and many of the UW zooms for that matter) and much cheaper.



Nov 03, 2009 at 12:40 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · 17-40L or ...?


17-40L is your best bet. Mine is even better than some highly respected atlernative primes: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/830786


Nov 03, 2009 at 05:19 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · 17-40L or ...?


17-40L is an outstanding lens. Very sharp, great color, lightweight, fast AF, weathersealed. Beautiful image quality, even on high density full frame bodies. The only downside is barrel distortion on the wide end, but it's easily fixed with a click with PTLens.


Nov 03, 2009 at 06:04 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · 17-40L or ...?


kakomu wrote:
I own the Canon EF 20-35 F/3.5-4.5. I like it a lot and it can be had for < $200 used from places like KEH. Unfortunately, it is missing a few mm of focal length on both the short and long end, but on the bright side, it's much smaller than the 17-40 (and many of the UW zooms for that matter) and much cheaper.


Unfortunately there is a big difference in wide-angle focal range between 20 mm and 17 mm. A couple of mm give you a very different view there. Otherwise you are right in your statement that the 20-35 mm lens is much more affordable and also smaller.



Nov 03, 2009 at 08:05 AM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · 17-40L or ...?


Jman13 wrote:
17-40L is an outstanding lens. Very sharp, great color, lightweight, fast AF, weathersealed. Beautiful image quality, even on high density full frame bodies. The only downside is barrel distortion on the wide end, but it's easily fixed with a click with PTLens.


Ditto, great lens. Very lightweight and compact as well.

I mostly used mine stopped down for landscapes, but I don't hestitate to use it wide open.



Nov 03, 2009 at 08:33 AM
Jacob D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · 17-40L or ...?


Thanks all. I pretty much figured the 17-40 was the lens to get, but I don't keep up with all the latest info on zooms, especially the third party lenses so I thought I'd ask the experts

The 20-35 sounds like a bargain, but I really want something with an UWA for landscape work. Out of curiosity, do any of you use the 17-40 on a crop body as a wide-to-standard length zoom? How do you like it on crop body? (I don't own any APS-C but just wondering)



Nov 03, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Cliftonyte
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · 17-40L or ...?


17-40mm is great glass for the money, all my landscapes are taken with this and some portrait work


Nov 03, 2009 at 10:37 AM
jph1
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · 17-40L or ...?


I used to have a 17-40 and now have a 16-35. If you don't need f/2.8 get the 17-40. It's a L of bargain



Nov 03, 2009 at 11:01 AM
racoll
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · 17-40L or ...?


I've used the 17-40 on a 10D, 20D, 30D, and now my7D and I absolutely love it. It makes a nice moderately wide zoom on the crop-bodies and a superb lens for landscapes. I do intend to purchase a 10-22 at some point but this lens has worked beautifully for me for a number of years and I'm in no rush to get that 10-22.

Andy



Nov 03, 2009 at 12:17 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · 17-40L or ...?


retrofocus wrote:
Unfortunately there is a big difference in wide-angle focal range between 20 mm and 17 mm. A couple of mm give you a very different view there. Otherwise you are right in your statement that the 20-35 mm lens is much more affordable and also smaller.


It's at times like this that one must question whether they do, in fact, need 17mm.



Nov 04, 2009 at 08:31 AM
05xrunner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · 17-40L or ...?


If you are trying not to spend alot...there is the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 DG
http://sigma4less.com/pd-productid-732-k-sigma_510101_sigma_zoom_wide_angle_17_35mm_f28_4_ex_dg_aspherical_hsm_autofocus_lens_for_canon_eos.htm

I bought this lens about 1.5years ago and it is very nice performer. Although the price has jumped alot as I only paid 300 for it new. My copy is very sharp and has never let me down. I think it was a bargain of a lens for what I got..Its smaller then the 17-40L
it doesnt focus as fast as the L but I dont really think of many times I need super fast AF on ultra wide stuff



Nov 04, 2009 at 08:42 AM
jaetie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · 17-40L or ...?


i was at the-digital-picture pixel-peeping last night.

if you go the resolution charts, you will find that it is now updated with samples from the usual suspects like the tamron 17-35, sigma 17-35, sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24. i went through all of them, including the 16-35L II, and it seems tha only the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L.



Nov 04, 2009 at 09:13 AM
05xrunner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · 17-40L or ...?


jaetie wrote:
i was at the-digital-picture pixel-peeping last night.

if you go the resolution charts, you will find that it is now updated with samples from the usual suspects like the tamron 17-35, sigma 17-35, sigma 15-30, sigma 12-24. i went through all of them, including the 16-35L II, and it seems tha only the 16-35L II beats the 17-40L.

You will go blind if you pixel peep non stop.
I also feel thsoe shots over there are weighted in canons favor..It seems most of the non Canon shots seem out of focus to help give canon the edge.



Nov 04, 2009 at 11:39 AM
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account