Walk about lens?

[tgr141291]

I'm thinking of getting a Walkabout/Wide angle lens for my birthday (Dec) and am thinking about the 17-40 f/4 L.

Is this a good choice? It seems to be my only choice as i am reluctant to go for a third party lens

I'll be using it for the general stuff - landscapes, sunsets, waterfalls etc. But also I shoot at rugby games where I use the 200mm f/2.8 L. However, when the players get within 15m of myself that is useless, unless i want a shot of there elbow or nose.

Therefore i would use my new lens to take sports photos when the action is within 20m of myself.

However, my concern is that f/4 won't be fast enough!? And with a bufget of £500 max, i cant afford to go for one of the Canon f/2.8 L lenses

I currently shoot landscapes etc with the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 400D. In a word, the image quality is SHOCKING when compared to my L lens.

I presume that the 17-40 will have IQ to rival my 200mm?

[engrmariano]

why is "17-55 2.8 IS" not in your list? i'll recommend it over "17-40 f4L" on cropped bodies.

[Jamie Holladay]

I can't speak for the 17-55 2.8 IS but I can speak for the 17-40. I love this lens. Anything that I shoot outside I try to shoot with it. It has great IQ.

[Qwest905]

Originally Posted by engrmariano

why is "17-55 2.8 IS" not in your list? i'll recommend it over "17-40 f4L" on cropped bodies.

because of " i cant afford to go for one of the Canon f/2.8 L lenses"

anyways why are you against 3rd party lens?

[KarlosDaJackal]

Originally Posted by tgr141291

And with a bufget of £500 max, i cant afford to go for one of the Canon f/2.8 L lenses

Originally Posted by engrmariano

why is "17-55 2.8 IS" not in your list? i'll recommend it over "17-40 f4L" on cropped bodies.

Because its cost £930 and as he stated £500 is his max.

[Pandya]

I have and use one as a walk around lens. It's absoutely brilliant. The wide end is more than wide enough and the longer end is equally very usable. It's very sharp wide open and colours, contrast, all excellent. Great lens.

Don't be so concerned about f/4 being fast enough, you can always bump the ISO. Depth of field effects are minimal at short focal lengths, so the dof benefits of a faster lens are minimal, and equally, camera shake is far less pronounced at shorter focal lengths. I get about fine with mine

[tgr141291]

Originally Posted by KarlosDaJackal

Because its cost £930 and as he stated £500 is his max.

Well i have seen it for £630, but thats still above my budget and I don't think that i really need IS because i will be using a tripod for anything below 1/200

anyways why are you against 3rd party lens?

I'm not against them, but i don't know of anything that rivals the 17-40 and i've always thought that if L glass works well for me, why change?

[tgr141291]

The only reason i wanted faster is beacuse, the rugby i shoot usually takes place on a friday night under floodlights. Tbh the lighting is very poor

I have do shoot at ISO 1600, TV 1/200, AV f/2.8 with my 200mm f/2.8 L !

[KarlosDaJackal]

I think you need a 85mm 1.8 for the rugby, and for a walkabout get something cheaper from sigma/tamron/tokina that is f/2.8

[Qwest905]

85mm 1.8 then a sigma 24-60 and you are golden =)
or switch that sigma 24-60 wtih tamron 17-50

[Raikiri]

Originally Posted by KarlosDaJackal

Because its cost £930 and as he stated £500 is his max.

£930!? http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...roducts_id=341



I have a 24-60 f2.8 (Sigma) It's a nice lens but you may not find it wide enough, I paid £100 used for mine. Something from a 3rd party paired with the Canon 85m f1.8 would be a good option.

The 17-40 is a great lens and if it is fast enough I am certain you would be more than happy with it.

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by KarlosDaJackal

Because its cost £930 and as he stated £500 is his max.

sorry, i really dont know the equivalent of £500 to Singapore Dollars...

btw, i'll recommend Tamron 17-50 2.8 over 17-40L.

[JoYork]

I'd second the Tamron lens. Check out the image archive for that lens, it's an absolute bargain of a lens with excellent IQ.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Originally Posted by Raikiri

£930!? http://www.onestop-digital.com/catal...roducts_id=341



I have a 24-60 f2.8 (Sigma) It's a nice lens but you may not find it wide enough, I paid £100 used for mine. Something from a 3rd party paired with the Canon 85m f1.8 would be a good option.

The 17-40 is a great lens and if it is fast enough I am certain you would be more than happy with it.

Thanks for the link, looks to be an interesting price for that lens, everything else seems to be around about what I'd expect.

[xMClass]

I have the 17-40 f/4 L and it's on my camera about 65% of the time. You're going to love this lens if you get it.