Can't fall in love with my 17-40L :_(

Want to love it, but it's playing hard to get.

For some reason, I just couldn't get used to the FL.
When I use it, everytime I try to frame a shot, it would always end up with a completely different composition.

On top of that, for some reason, the shots look kinda bland when I review them on the body. Only after I download the RAW into a computer, they look nice (lots of small details). Quite the opposite of my 24-105 (shots look great on camera LCD, but turn bland on a big monitor).

I know lots swear by this lens and I've seen some amazing shots taken with it.


Obviously, this is a classic case of operator error

What's your take? Anyone care to school a beginner?
What's the best way to win its heart so that it'll allow me to tap its potentials?
Pointers appreciated.

I never go by what's on the LCD, but if you want a snappier photo 'in camera,' just adjust the photo style... even if you're shooting in RAW, the style settings will show in your LCD. Add some sharpening, contrast, color, whatever to make it look nicer. it will mess you up most likely if you look at the LCD picture for exposure information instead of the histogram.

Sounds like you just arent warming up to an ultrawide. The thing is with that lens, especially on the wide end the results are much different than the way you see things. This makes it difficult to pre-envision things unless you intentionally start trying to imagine shots from an ultrawide perspective. I dont know what you are trying to shoot with it. But I prefer to use it for compositions where I have a dominant photo element (subject or pattern) close to the lens and then let the perspective distortion do its thing on the edges to alter the way people perceive the subject. Look at the 17-40 sample thread.

Agree with the above. I borrowed this lens from a mate, and to start with I was not impressed. Then I tried experimenting, having something in the foreground makes a massive difference. This is on FF and 1.3 crop.

Well, this is how I did it. This is Friday, right? Almost time to party.
Put 17-40 and flash with compensation set to minimum on camera and start the party, like Friday style.
After few shots taken inside, you'll loose your "horse blinds" and you'll be ready to go wild and wide.

17mm, after party.

And because it is true L indeed , it is OK around 35mm for portraits too.

36mm

bigpow wrote in post #13818967
Want to love it, but it's playing hard to get.

For some reason, I just couldn't get used to the FL.
When I use it, everytime I try to frame a shot, it would always end up with a completely different composition.

On top of that, for some reason, the shots look kinda bland when I review them on the body. Only after I download the RAW into a computer, they look nice (lots of small details). Quite the opposite of my 24-105 (shots look great on camera LCD, but turn bland on a big monitor).

I know lots swear by this lens and I've seen some amazing shots taken with it.


Obviously, this is a classic case of operator error

What's your take? Anyone care to school a beginner?
What's the best way to win its heart so that it'll allow me to tap its potentials?
Pointers appreciated.

Key to remember with an ultra wide lens is get close. You really need to be quite close to your main subject or it will just fade into the background. You also need to pay attention to the edges, because quite often the purpose of a wide angle photo is to show the subject in its environment. Things will come into the sides of the image which you didn't notice in the viewfinder, and which you ultimately didn't want in the final photo. It happens one time or another to every photographer, but it seems to happen most often with wider views.

Love my 17-40L, it's a great hiking lens too.

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Love shouldn't come into it. It is a tool. Learn how to us it. If it's not doing the job, replace it.

i'm happy with mine, wish it were wider. it's different than using a prime, very different. maybe it just takes time to get to used to, i cut my teeth on WA with my 10-22.

i got rid of mine for the 35L and couldn't be happier

gonzogolf wrote in post #13818995
Sounds like you just arent warming up to an ultrawide. The thing is with that lens, especially on the wide end the results are much different than the way you see things. This makes it difficult to pre-envision things unless you intentionally start trying to imagine shots from an ultrawide perspective. I dont know what you are trying to shoot with it. But I prefer to use it for compositions where I have a dominant photo element (subject or pattern) close to the lens and then let the perspective distortion do its thing on the edges to alter the way people perceive the subject. Look at the 17-40 sample thread.

This is great advice. You need to learn to "see" these focal lengths to really appreciate the lens.

Yea, I hear you, but I guess I quickly fell in love with UWA. When I shot B&W film I couldn't imaging shooting at 24mm, never mind 16, but now I would say 16-18mm is my favorite FL.

So I guess I'm saying while I love this FL, I can totally see why a particular shooting style would not.

I'm not even sure it is something you want to 'learn' if it does not help you realize your vision. Unless you're looking to learn something or realize a new vision. I would go on flickr and look at shots taken at ~17mm FF or ~10-12mm with crop and see if you see stuff that interests you. If nothing lights any fires, then maybe this just isn't the FL for you.

The 'bland' thing I can't relate to. Not sure what you mean - compositionally bland? If so, then that's exactly why I'm not a fan of 40-60mm. Not that someone can't make strong comps at those FL, just that they don't really interest me as something I'm looking to create.

My workflow:

Imagine the final result (or at the very least decide on what the subject/story/what to convey/message is).
Choose the tool for the job
Get the information (ETTR, overexpose, double exposure, DOF, shutter speed etc..)
PP to realize the vision
If I'm lucky realize a better vision during PP

Thanks for all the feedbacks.
- get closer
- learn/get used to WA perspective

When I said bland, I was referring to my composition. I have to place a subject in the center of the frame, otherwise the subject got distorted and really soft.

bigpow wrote in post #13825328
Thanks for all the feedbacks.
- get closer
- learn/get used to WA perspective

When I said bland, I was referring to my composition. I have to place a subject in the center of the frame, otherwise the subject got distorted and really soft.

And something else: because of the fast drop-off in detail with distance with WA lenses, due to the very large AoV, make sure that what you want sharp, the object or subject that one's eye is drawn to, has optimal focus, i.e, is within DoF. Leaves on a tree 500 m away, even at 40 mm, won't show any detail, because the details are too small to be captured by even a single pixel. And hyperfocal distance doesn't work really anyway, especially not with digital.

Kind regards, Wim