17-40mm f/4.0 L

[dennykyser]

Does anyone use this lens for Portraits? Before I purchase another 50mm was wanting to see if this would make as sharp of a portrait as the 50mm's

I am having a hard time replacing glass, this would be the very end of my limit for now, I just want to get the best glass and the best range possible.

I love to shoot portraits but like everyone shoot whatever I can including landscapes. Want to hear your thoughts on this lens.

[yalemba]

You may consider 24-70mm f/2.8L for portraits...I have been using it for a few months now, and am very happy with the results. It is a bit less sharp than my 50mm f/1.4, but gives you the zooming capability.

[dennykyser]

That is what I would love to have but that is twice the money which I dont have now.

[Andy_T]

... if it doesn't HAVE to be Canon L lens,
... but only comparable picture quality according to some reviews :lol: ... you might take a look at the Tamron XR 28-75 f/2.8

Regards,
Andy

[dennykyser]

Thanks Andy,

You are right, I will consider any lens that is of equal quality.

[Vegas Poboy]

No I have the lens but I do not use it for portraits. My main lense for portriats is the 70-200 f/4 and every know & then I use the 50mm F/1.8

[Andy_T]

Thanks Andy,

You are right, I will consider any lens that is of equal quality.

Disclaimer:

I don't own that lens.
However, it's on top of my wish list as soon as I get a DSLR - which I will not do this year, for personal reasons (has a lot to do with explaining the expense to my wife :lol: )

Here's a link to a (small) review by JAF Doorhof.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20221&start=0&postdays=0&postorde r=asc&highlight=tamron+75

It also got some pretty good reviews on http://www.photozone.de. Main point of criticism normally is the 'all plastic' appearance.

Regards,
Andy

[Jesper]

Denny,

I have the 17-40 f/4L, but not the 50mm, so I can't compare them directly, but the 17-40L is a great, very sharp lens. It's also build very solidly. However, for close-up portaits I think I'd find it too wide, even on the 10D or 300D with the 1.6x factor. I've done a course and used my 28-135 almost all the time for the portraits, with focal lengths mostly around 70mm on my 10D.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have the 17-40mm and although I love it,. I don't think I have considered it much for portraits.. I'd use my 50mm f/1.8 first.. then move up to the 70-200mm at about 70mm - 100mm

[iwatkins]

I would also recommend something longer than 17-40mm for portraits, it is just a little too wide and you will no doubt be up against the 40mm end most (if not all) of the time. Something in the range of 28-130 or so would be great.

Mind you I've done a portrait with the Sigma 12-24mm (@ 12mm) :D :

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/tina_Sigma.jpg

Cheers

Ian