I am looking at getting a wide lense

[theflyingkiwi]

the 17-40 F4 L lense. I know that this is a great lense and all, etc etc. Are there any other lenses in the same price range that I should consider.

When it comes down to price range, I am not talking 100's of dollars more, either the same price and cheaper.

btw this will be my first L lense, lets hope it does not make go out and buy more :lol:

thanks

[Ferdinand]

Heheh don't even think about it mate! I thought of 17-40mm f/4 for a couple of days and I ended up getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 and it just arrived today Yippedoda SWEET AS!

Chocolate Fish's on me!

Regards,
Ferdinand

[theflyingkiwi]

good idea but bad execution,

I have the 28-135 so that lense already covers that range, I would like something a little wider.

also the problem with that is the cost, that lense is $2700 where as the one I want is 1600, a big price difference.

[Wickedfn4u]

sigma 15-30 is a very nice lens for the money.

[WestFalcon]

I think the 20-35 USM is a great lens for a non-L lens. I get superb results and it performs almost as good as my 17-40 L lens. I've compared them side by side on the same picture thinking there would be a huge difference but to my surprise...there is not.

[defordphoto]

The 17-40L is a great performer. I just added one to my bag about a month ago and love it. When stopped down a bit it even outperforms it's bigger, and much more expensive brother, the 16-35L. the f4 may force flash more often than the faster 16-35, but I shoot mostly outdoors anyway so this was a natural addition for me. I highly recommend it and I think this is one of Canon's best deals on an L-lens.

The 17mm focal length is perfect for the APS sensor cams. It very well may become your walk-around lens. It spends quite a bit of time stuck to the front of my 10D.

[kanwingshing]

Actually 17-40 outperforms 16-35 in a lot of areas even at f4.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[samdring]

Bought 17-40 and 51.4 mmf thingy at the same time
Bad mistake - little use on 17-40 yet cos hell bent on keeping the little 1.4 on the 10D

[cloudless]

Since you already have the 28-135 for walkaround, perhaps you can get a prime for wide angle?

[BCdives]

I love my 16-35 L, large buildings, massive landscapes, Rosie Odonell...NO PROBLEM!

[Cadwell]

The 17-40L is a nice toy and I don't find the f/4.0 maximum aperture much of a problem.

[MediaMagic]

The 17-40L is a nice toy and I don't find the f/4.0 maximum aperture much of a problem.

I wouldn't think it would be a problem. I don't really do wide angle photography at all, in fact, I've never owned a wide angle lens. the 24-70L is my widest ever. But, correct me if I am wrong here, in typical wide angle shots such as landscapes, wouldn't you be going for extended DOF at small apertures anyway? I would think most shots would be tripod mounted at a minimum of f11 and commonly at say f22.

So, what would be an instance where f2.8 would be useful for wide angle? sorry for the ignorance, just really don't have a clue.

[Cadwell]

I wouldn't think it would be a problem. I don't really do wide angle photography at all, in fact, I've never owned a wide angle lens. the 24-70L is my widest ever. But, correct me if I am wrong here, in typical wide angle shots such as landscapes, wouldn't you be going for extended DOF at small apertures anyway? I would think most shots would be tripod mounted at a minimum of f11 and commonly at say f22.

So, what would be an instance where f2.8 would be useful for wide angle? sorry for the ignorance, just really don't have a clue.

I mainly use the 17-40L for shooting cars at motorshows and pit/paddock work at motor-racing events. It allows me to get shots of the cars without leaving a big enough space for people to wander in front of me :roll: (there's nothing better than a camera for making you invisible). In both those cases light levels can be a problem and the f/4.0 maximum aperture sometimes forces me to go to flash when I would rather not... but it's not too much of a problem.

I rarely do landscapes.

[iwatkins]

I mainly use the 17-40L for shooting cars at motorshows and pit/paddock work at motor-racing events. It allows me to get shots of the cars without leaving a big enough space for people to wander in front of me :roll:

I know that feeling. I also find my Sigma 17-35 f2.8 perfect for car closeups in the pitlane or motorshows. Having a fast wideangle is also useful in low light for this.

I also use the same lens for landscape work (which I do a lot of) and of course, here having a fast lens doesn't help at all as I do indeed stop down to f22 or so.

The Sigma 12-24mm is fun for closeup shots of cars. However, it is so wide you have to be almost *in* the car to get the shot :shock: Actually, not really, but you can be within two feet of a car and still get it all in.

Cheers

Ian

[billfranklin]

Is any one using the prime 15mm 2.8. I need something for large groups and was wondering if this would do the job.

Bill F.

[dennykyser]

Get the lens and dont look back, Great all around lens, it is whats on my camera most of the time. Like you said its the very best lens for the money, I agree that maybe the 28-70 is a very desired lens for me but that is in the future.

I was not sure if I needed that L lens or not so I first got a wide angle prime. (24mm) I soon found that I was both missing some shots because with the 1.6 factor it was not wide enough and other shots I was throwing out a lot of pixels when I had to crop so much of it. The 17-40 L fixed that problem and besides then you are a member of the L Club :D

[Belmondo]

The 17-40L was my first L lens. Earlier I had bought a Sigma 17-35, but found it had focusing problems right out of the box. I sent it back and then bought the Canon lens. I've been very happy with it, and used it extensively until I covered the range with the 24-70L and the Sigma 12-24. I don't have enough experience with the Sigma lens to comment on it yet, but early results have been encouraging.

Anyway, the 17-40L is deserving of its excellent reputation.

Thos.