For 17-40 and 24-70 "L" owners..........

[roanjohn]

Just looking for some real life answers from your experience with these lenses.

First, the 17-40 f4 L.

Price wise, it is excellent. My questions are..........How often does this lens stay on your body?? Does this lens take good portraits (I doubt it)?? What about distortion?? especailly at the wide end............Is it a big difference compared to the kit lens??

PRO - Price, weight, wide-angle
CON - f4.

Second, the 24-70 f2.8 L

Expensive piece of glass :shock: How often does this stay on your body?? Because of its weight (haven't really seen it in real life) is it a burden having it on all day?? How sharp is it wide open??

PRO - f2.8, Added versatility with the zoom, good walk around lens.
CON - Price and weight.

I hope I haven't taken too much of your time. I've read the reviews but I really want to hear from people who have actually used these lenses in the field. Thanks in advance for any replies.....:-)

Ro1

[maderito]

An important question that has been discussed before.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26974

I also would be interested in updated opinions on the topic.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have the 24-70. It is on the camera in my bag, so it is my default lens. Yes, it is big, it is heavy, and if you use a neck strap you will know how big and heavy it is after a short while. And if you have any hope of using it with a built-in flash, forget it due to shadowing. :wink:

But as I said, it is my default lens. It has a good range and is fast. That said, I think the 50mm Canon primes (1.8 and 1.4) outperform it at 2.8, but that should be no surprise, as they are hitting their stride at 2.8. :D

If the money is an issue, and lens speed is not, I would think a good case could be made for having the 17-40 and the 28-135 IS. And if you needed a fast lens or two you could get a 50mm 1.8 and a 35mm f2 and still be ahead of the game money-wise. :wink:

Hope this helps.

[Vegas Poboy]

Just my opinion since I missed the last post.
I don't have the 24-70 f/2.8, from what i hear great lens.

The 17-40 I do have it was sort of an impulse buy for me but it was well worth it. I use this lens the most on landscapes, group shots & indoor shoots where everyone is packed in. I did a candid shoot for family day @ a new hospital, very little room to zoom due to the crowd and with the lens wide angle I was able to maneuver with great ease.
Just yesterday I took a day trip to Death Valley, CA. & this lens stayed on the camera 95% of the time for the landscapes shots. Again closeup group shots you just can't go wrong. I've seen very little distortion with this lens.

Overall I feel everyone needs some type of wide angle lens in their bag until the 1:1 chips gets affordable. Either the 17-40 or the 16-35 f/2.8 you can't lose on.

Good Luck,
Hopefully this will help

[Belmondo]

An important question that has been discussed before.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26974

I also would be interested in updated opinions on the topic.

Congratulations: NCAA men's and women's championships. Impressive.

Now that the gratuitous compliments are out of the way, I re-read the thread that you've referenced, and find my attitudes regarding these two lenses have not changed except for the following:

I have since purchased the Sigma 12-24, and find it to be pretty good at the very wide settings. This is probably cutting into my use of the 17-40, but I still rate it very highly despite the diminished use. The 24-70 remains my 'default' lens and stays on the camera almost all the time.

[sp00g3]

Along these lines, I am debating between replacing the 18-55mm EF-S lense (that comes with DigRebel) with the Canon 17-40F4L or the Sigma 24 - 70 f2.8... Currently my Telephoto lense is the cheap 55-200mm Canon Lense. I prefer takeing Landscapes and Portraiture, but realized I needed a telezoom. I also could replace that lens with the 70-200mm F4L lens.. But I am stuck monetarily and can only afford to purchase one of these three lenses. I am mainly looking towards the wide Angle side. Also.. I have the 50mm 1.8 lens as well. so I am actually leaning towards the 17-40 since it would make since with my current setup.

I have noticed that a lot of pictures I have been taking with the 18-55 have been very soft and vignetting is VERY noticable.

[roanjohn]

An important question that has been discussed before.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26974

I also would be interested in updated opinions on the topic.

Thanks for this...........Definitely answered most of my questions.........

I guess I might've reached a decision.......

I want BOTH!!! he he..............

Who doesn't?? But I can only afford one................so I think the 17-40 for now.

Ro1

or maybe the 24-70...............Okay.............

am going CRAZY!!! :shock:

[sp00g3]

An important question that has been discussed before.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26974

I also would be interested in updated opinions on the topic.

Thanks for this...........Definitely answered most of my questions.........

I guess I might've reached a decision.......

I want BOTH!!! he he..............

Who doesn't?? But I can only afford one................so I think the 17-40 for now.

Ro1

or maybe the 24-70...............Okay.............

am going CRAZY!!! :shock:

I feel your pain too bro... Just haven't heard any reviews on the Sigma 24 - 70 2.8 yet.

[CyberDyneSystems]

roanjohn,

One of my rules of thumb is to expand your focal range before replacing existing glass....

This assumes you hav the "kit" lens... in which case I would suggest not duplicating the foacal lenght with the 17-40mm untill you have covered some of the other bases.

However,. On the other hand,. if you find based on your use of the wide 18-55mm lens that you like to shoot at the wide end.. well then perhaps my rule of thumb is moot.

If this is the case,. another option may be the following:

For roughly the same cost as the ONE 24-70mm f/2.8,.. you could get the two less expensive f/4 "L" s (17-40mm and 70-200mm f/4 L)

In the meantime to fill the middle a little AND give you the speed,. get eiter the $70.00 50mm f/1.8 or the 250.00 50mm f/1.4

I realize this was not the specific question you asked.. but it just seems another posibility worth your thought if you have any daydreams of a telephoto zoom.

Lastly,. I can tell you I have both my 17-40mm and my 70-200mm on my Camera a good deal more often than I have the 28-70mm f/2.8,... in fact that is exactly the combo I have own my two cameras right now.

[sp00g3]

That helps me a lot. But I still don't know if I should replace the 55-200 Canon with the 70-200f4L first or the 18-55 with the 17-40L first.I still am leaning towards the 17-40. First off. I can still sell the 18-55 now on Ebay if I choose to do so and make some of the moneys back. I still have a fairly 'ungapped' range with a 17 - 40, 50 MkII, and 55-200 f4.5 - 5.6.. Considering telephotos are used for out door stuff anyways.. a Fast Telezoom isn't necessary.

[roanjohn]

roanjohn,

One of my rules of thumb is to expand your focal range before replacing existing glass....

.......

Lastly,. I can tell you I have both my 17-40mm and my 70-200mm on my Camera a good deal more often than I have the 28-70mm f/2.8,... in fact that is exactly the combo I have own my two cameras right now.

Thanks CDS!!! This definitely reaffirms my initial instincts............to go with the 17-40 and use the extra cash on a good prime.

So, I finally made up my mind.........

17-40 f4 L
85 f 1.8

with the Canon rebate just in time, this should be a good summer................YIPEEE!!!

Happy shooting everybody.....

Ro1

[Jesper]

I have the 17-40L and the 28-135 IS.

The 17-40L is an excellent lens, and not too expensive for an "L" lens. It's great for landscapes etc., but not good for portraits, because it's too wide. For things like landscapes, it's no problem that it isn't faster than f/4 - you usually have enough light and don't want very shallow DOF for landscapes.

[kraterz]

If you're getting the 17-40, then look for a used 28-70L instead of the 24-70. The 28-70's are quite affordable these days and much cheaper than the 24-70. They are every bit as good as the 24-70.

[Andy_T]

If you're getting the 17-40, then look for a used 28-70L instead of the 24-70. The 28-70's are quite affordable these days and much cheaper than the 24-70. They are every bit as good as the 24-70.

Also, the excellent Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR was mentioned in the thread.

... Maybe it might also be an idea to look into the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 XR DI lens, that has - so far - only very few, but also very positive reviews. Actually, I'm really wondering why this lens does not get more discussion here.

And - of course - the Sigma 12-24 is a quite unique selection (literally, for Canon users :()

Best regards,
Andy

[roanjohn]

Also, the excellent Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR was mentioned in the thread.

... Maybe it might also be an idea to look into the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 XR DI lens, that has - so far - only very few, but also very positive reviews. Actually, I'm really wondering why this lens does not get more discussion here.

And - of course - the Sigma 12-24 is a quite unique selection (literally, for Canon users :()

Best regards,
Andy

Too funny cuz I was actually reading Practical Photography (THE BRIT VERSION!!!) about wide angle lenses and they gave the sigma 12-24 the "recommended" ribbon and not the Canon 17-40 (not that it really mattered).

I guess a few more options to make our decision that much more challenging.

Gotta wait for B&H to open so I can sample these lenses............6 more days.

Ro1

[samdring]

Practical Photography (THE BRIT VERSION!!!) about wide angle lenses and they gave the sigma 12-24 the "recommended" ribbon and not the Canon 17-40 (not that it really mattered).

I guess a few more options to make our decision that much more challenging.

Ro1

Yes you are right - they did. BUT the 17-40 outscored or equalled the sigma in everything apart from price. We all know Canon don't give much away!!

[Can't have the Brits blamed for Canon's diminishing sales!]

[roanjohn]

Practical Photography (THE BRIT VERSION!!!) about wide angle lenses and they gave the sigma 12-24 the "recommended" ribbon and not the Canon 17-40 (not that it really mattered).

I guess a few more options to make our decision that much more challenging.

Ro1

Yes you are right - they did. BUT the 17-40 outscored or equalled the sigma in everything apart from price. We all know Canon don't give much away!!

[Can't have the Brits blamed for Canon's diminishing sales!]

They actually ended up having the same rating of 91%, Canon only losing a few points on the cost. But you know you have to get that ever so elusive "recommended" ribbon to get your sales up ;-)

Ro1

[thom@s]

I too have the 24-70L and it's almsost always on my 10D. I just come back from a 3-days-trip in Tokyo and I can tell you it's pretty heavy when you wear it all day... But obviously, I'm really happy when I see my photos !

http://www.photo-nette.com/albums/userpics/IMG_2308_wbc.jpg

[Andy_T]

Hi Thomas,

that's a great photo!

I'm wondering ... is that snow or cherry blossoms?

I just returned from a 5 day trip to Osaka and Kyoto, and it looked more like this :)
(Apologies for the uninspired postcard-style photograph)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2271220&size=lg

But then, the photo was taken with my mother's Kodak EasyShare 4330 camera, as my BP511 had failed on me... so the colours might be off :)

Best regards,
Andy

[thom@s]

I'm wondering ... is that snow or cherry blossoms?
Cherry blossoms... (it was a week ago)

I just returned from a 5 day trip to Osaka and Kyoto, and it looked more like this
Wondeful photo... I really like your postcard-style photo ;) I'll try to put my best photos of Tokyo online today. If you want to have a look and criticize them, don't hesitate to visit my website (http://www.photo-nette.com).