your experience with the 17-40, please guys

[petiot]

i have thouhgt about this lens for so long, got excited about the review (all very good), read every thing i could find about it etc etc.

now i am about to buy one and i have a doubt. I have a 24-85 and, although i have never tried other zoom i think the focale range is very usefull and "flexible". Now my thoughts are that if i change for a 17-40 i might find myself short most of the time, without really enjoying the Wide angle wow effect on a 10D. and what about a 17-40 on a (futur) 10D 1.3 crop factor, 40 mm, that would be very short!!


Because this will be my only lens for a while (until i save enought to buy something else) i am a bit concerned. Whats is your experience with this lens as an every day lens? I know many people say that this lens is for landscape, but what about as a walk around lens? Do you need to swap lens often, have you ever find yourself frustrated to have only 40 mm?

Well, thanks, i ll try to resist buying it until i receive a couple of answer!! ;)

(oh last question, from what focale you can use the 10D built in flash on this lens without having the shadow of the barrel?)

thanks

[Mark Kemp]

This is a tough one to answer.

As you say 'change for a 17-40' I assume you mean that you will sell the longer zoom to partly pay for the new one.

I wouldn't do this unless you almost exclusively take landscapes and other subjects for which you need the wide angle. 40mm is a bit too wide for ordinary portraits and won't let you zoom in to pick out details without going quite close to your subject. If you want to experiment go out for a days shooting and restrict yourself to the wide end only of your existing zoom, then see how often you want to use the longer range.

If you can possibly afford it keep the 24-85 as well and carry both. Most of us usually carry 2 or 3 lenses - which is one of the big advantages of having an SLR camera as opposed to something with a single fixed lens.

I have the 17-40 and it is a very good performer. I dont have the 24-85 but I expect it will be similar to the other Canon lenses that are often sold with a body as your first lens. So probably not quite as good as the 17-40, but by no means a bad lens.

If you only want to take an occasional wider shot for landscapes etc. consider taking 2 shots with the 24-85 and stitching them together in a computer to produce a panorama. I expect that your camera came with some stitching software. Then save up a bit longer for the new lens.

As for shading the flash, I don't know, I have never seen it happen, but you don't usually try to get close ups with this lens so it shouldn't really be much of a problem. You can always get an off camera flash or even a bracket and an extension cord to allow you to move the flash forward or outward if it becomes a nuisance.

[Cadwell]

The 17-40L is a fantastic lens. I love my copy for motorshows and paddock work at racetracks (I'm useless at landscapes so I'm not going to comment).

Leaving that statement to stand by itself, I find it too short for a "walk around" lens and usually use my 28-75mm Tamron in that circumstance.

I've never attempted to use it with the built in flash.

[nosquare2003]

If you find the focal lengths of 24-85 very useful, do not swap the lens to 17-40/4L even it is a better lens. The 24-85 is a very good consumer lens and it can produce good photos.

[WestFalcon]

The built in flash is blocked at wide (17mm) on the 17-40 lens. A half dark circle shows at the bottom of the picture. I tried it at f8 and 1/60th of a second. I like my 28-135mm IS as a walk around lens. I have that one on my camera most of the time eventhough I have 17-40 and 28-70 L lenses available. I use the L lenses for all of my formal wedding pictures in front of the church where I need edge to edge sharpness. The 28-135 is a lens that you would really like and has tremendous resale value if you don't like it. About $400 last time I looked.

[Webster]

I love my 17-40, and would hate to be without it. But if I had to carry only one lens, that would not be it. For all around versatility, I'd have to go with the 28-135. But oh, that L quality! If Canon ever comes out with an L replacement for the 28-135 (but small and black) I'm already in line.

[Laziferous]

I have the 17-40, and also wouldn't be without it. Like Webster, it's not my walk around lens either.... well, at this point, I don't have one. It is mounted more often than not though. It just better suits my style of shooting. I like wide. You sound like you already had reservations, so just take a look at some of your shots, see at what focal lengths you normally shoot, then make your decision.

[petiot]

Hi Chris!! guess what ! it is exactley what i was doing! reviewing my shots and the exif data (AcDsee is great for that by the way)

Thanks all of you guys. very usefull info.

Dan

[Laziferous]

Hi Dan, great minds think alike it seems?

Or maybe more accurately, a moron like myself, can occassionally think like someone with a great mind :wink:

Good luck in your decision making.