I inherited a 17-40L - Should I keep it?

Interesting - how is that a danger?

Obviously it is not suitable for all situations. Like anything else it's just a tool for right job. And it's all in your eye. Low angle landscape, nature and architectural shots can really benefit from such compositions.

dche5390 wrote in post #9896036
The danger of going wide is framing/composition.

The 17-40L can fit a LOT on FF. I find wides very difficult to handle.

Exactly as you have put it. A lot of people think that in order to fit more in, they must go WA/UWA. Sometimes, the composition is just off.

I think it takes a lot of effort to get a wide shot right. I certainly fall into the category of having no idea what to frame in a wide angle exposure.

sapearl wrote in post #9896069
Interesting - how is that a danger?

Obviously it is not suitable for all situations. Like anything else it's just a tool for right job. And it's all in your eye. Low angle landscape, nature and architectural shots can really benefit from such compositions.

I completely agree with you Daniel . I've seen that happen with folks here .

But I'm cheating a bit - I've been visualizing in this fashion since around 1969 - so certain scenes jump out to me as UWA compostions, while others are obvious as isolated/heavily cropped or telephoto shots. The scene just seems to present itself to me. But it does takes time to "see" in that fashion. However, the more you shoot, the more you practice, the more you take risks and experiment - the bettery your eye will become.

dche5390 wrote in post #9896163
Exactly as you have put it. A lot of people think that in order to fit more in, they must go WA/UWA. Sometimes, the composition is just off.

I think it takes a lot of effort to get a wide shot right. I certainly fall into the category of having no idea what to frame in a wide angle exposure.

Thank you all for taking the time to advise me here. I think I'll keep it...as it will make a good addition to my 24-70 and 70-200 L's. Several of you have mentioned, it takes practice to make a wide shot work. I know nothing about "wide compositions". I guess I have more practice ahead of me.

Thanks again.
Danny

Danny,
Check the 17-40 and the 16-35 sample threads. Lots of great work in there that will give you ideas about what to do and what not to do.

I would definitely keep it. I used my 17-40 (now I use my 16-35) all the time during receptions, for wide angle dance floor shots and especially for being able to capture the throwing-the-bouquet moment: you can place the bride in the foreground and still see all the single ladies waiting behind her (or you could swap perspectives). Very nice lens. I sold mine here on POTN, actually.

snyper77 wrote in post #9890008
I mainly do portrait and weddings with a 5D. I recently inherited a 17-40L and was wondering if it may be a useful lens for weddings. I did some test shots around the house (on my kids) and you have to get really close to the subject to fill the frame (like within 2 feet).

I feel like I'm invading someone's personal space when I get that close. I just don't see how I can use a 17-40 to shoot a wedding.

Please advise. Thanks!

Absolutely not...you should give it to me!

oh yes, play with it and you'll get used to it, they're fantastic for weddings