17-40l

[jerrythesnake]

Hi all , been taking many shots with my 20d and a 100mm2.8 canon usm with which i am extremely impressed. i shoot fungi and snakes in the wild (weird combination i know) i am thinking of buying the 17-40l lens so i can get more of the surrounding area while still maintaining quite a close shot.can anyone recommend this lens for this or will i be wasting my money. i was just worried about distortion being quite close to my subjects. any help will be appreciated.

[ddelallata]

With the 1.6X crop of the 20D, you shouldn't notice any distortion.

[Dante King]

What kind of snakes. Love eating shrooms more than potographing them. Only good snake is a dead one IMHO. Oh, you could lump spiders in there as well.

Seriously, are you planning on using flash. Sounds like you are in the woods and it might be a tad dark form tree cover. Might want to go with somehting faster if you are not using flash. Only prob there is that the 17-40L 2.8 is a bit more $$ (aka 16-35L). You are going to be getting mighty close with this lens compared to the 100mm too.

[jerrythesnake]

Hi Dante, do you mean dark through the viewfinder for focusing? most of my shots are on a tripod and at about f11. dont mind being close, just wanted to try a different aspect. thanks for the comments.

[Dante King]

Tripod? Snakes pose? Wow, f11. No, I meant that It sounded like you were out in the deep dark woods. Sounds like the 17-40 would do you good. Just out of curiosity, why do you want to show more background? Isnt the subject the meat and potatoes? I have a quest to get closer on my non landscape work. Just curious so please forgive me, and dont take my desires as anything normal or sane.

[BottomBracket]

I think the 17-40L would work great with mushrooms, as you can really get in close, but with snakes? Yikes! :) Anyway, as previously said, don't worry about distortion with this lens. Quite sharp too from corner to corner.

[I Simonius]

Hi all , been taking many shots with my 20d and a 100mm2.8 canon usm with which i am extremely impressed. i shoot fungi and snakes in the wild (weird combination i know) i am thinking of buying the 17-40l lens so i can get more of the surrounding area while still maintaining quite a close shot.can anyone recommend this lens for this or will i be wasting my money. i was just worried about distortion being quite close to my subjects. any help will be appreciated.

You can shoot REALLY close with this lens ( closer than this!)and it doesn't distort witrha 1.6 crop camera

BUT test it wit a boring ol bit of newspaper because I had two with one fuzzy edge
The third is a cracker! EXCELLENT lens

[cmM]

it's pretty sharp, but I don't know if it's sharp enough to get all those details you want in there. I'd also look at some primes.... 24, 28, maybe 35 ?

[ecobo]

Quite sharp too from corner to corner.

Yes it is sharp, but not from corner to corner. It shows softness and aberations even with my 20D 1.6x camera.You got to stop it down to f9 to obtain an acceptable focus in the corners. Shoot RAW - you can get control over the cromatic aberation converting the RAW file with the Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) converter.

Good lens, but not as good as priced. I'm giving it 6/10

[I Simonius]

it's pretty sharp, but I don't know if it's sharp enough to get all those details you want in there. I'd also look at some primes.... 24, 28, maybe 35 ?

By my reckoning no prime is sugnificantly better except the L lenses

[cmM]

By my reckoning no prime is sugnificantly better except the L lenses
Some primes are better than L zooms....

[ddelallata]

By my reckoning no prime is sugnificantly better except the L lenses
:shock: Oh how mistaken you are.

[I Simonius]

Some primes are better than L zooms....

eeeek - NOT zooms - THIS zoom!:o :o :o :o

[I Simonius]

:shock: Oh how mistaken you are.

Well I looked at the specs, MTF, and examples for the 15mm, 20mm, 24mm 28mm 35mm

I have also actually used the 15mm and 28mm and 35 mm so I have first hand experience.

The only ones that were as good all round as the 17-40 were the 24 and 35, but they weren't noticably *better* although they might be faster. (i.e. the 15 distorts too much and although sharp, isn't sharper - the 20 is definitely not a better performer, nor is the 28, or at least not significantly so)

that leaves the 24 and 35. The 24 is definitely as good but cooler, but not noticable better; the 35 is probably the only one thast is noticably better than the 17-40 at the same FL, but 35 doesn't get better until f5.6 or f8. Also the colour rendition is cooler than the zoom, but unless that is the FL you use most it wouldn't be worth having the 35 as well. The 17-40 is definitely weak at the 40 end which is why the 35 is better at that FL

So I stand by my comment that only the L lenses at similar FLs are *better* than the 17-40, i.e. the 24L and the 35L. These lenses are singnificantly better than the 17-40 zoom

If you disagree please let me have your reasoning?:D

[jerrythesnake]

Tripod? Snakes pose? Wow, f11. No, I meant that It sounded like you were out in the deep dark woods. Sounds like the 17-40 would do you good. Just out of curiosity, why do you want to show more background? Isnt the subject the meat and potatoes? I have a quest to get closer on my non landscape work. Just curious so please forgive me, and dont take my desires as anything normal or sane.//i have taken 100s of closeup shots of snakes and lizards, mushrooms and other various wildlife, just felt i would like to try a new perspective, sometimes the surrounding area will make the shot not always the animal or subject itself. the 100mm macro is a bit limited in fov . just thought it would be nice to still have a closeup subject but still show more of the surroundings. thanks for everyones replys:)