It's 2am: 26th Edition... Crazy Shizz My Roger Says...

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159271
17-40 is a terrible lens

Sup Lloyd. Yes, it sucks, I have to agree. That's why I want a 24L II

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159271
17-40 is a terrible lens

http://farm8.staticfli​ckr.com …02930627_a42f2f​643c_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticfli​ckr.com …49307345_3081ae​bd3a_z.jpg

http://farm8.staticfli​ckr.com …02939147_81ac22​5d14_z.jpg

Lloyd! was thiking of you earlier

nice shots. the 17-40 is not terrible *shakes fist*

MOkoFOko wrote in post #14159262
Be more interested in the reported sharpness. Cosmetics don't mean anything--but they base the pricing solely on the cosmetic condition.

If you're going to spend the money regardless, talk your mom into co-signing for a card. It's stupid to go around making purchases without protections or cashback incentives. All you're really trying to do here is avoid having her aware of your activities.

Ok, but in all honesty my mom isn't going to get me a credit card anytime soon. I can talk to her all I want, but no matter what I say or do she will not give me a credit card at all.

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159271
17-40 is a terrible lens

I hate you

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159271
17-40 is a terrible lens

I think that's going to be my next lens instead of the 17-55... since I've considering adding a FF later on the 17-40 is the more practical choice...

Especially since I can pretty much get a 17-40 and a sigma 50 1.4 for the price of a 17-55.

DTBaan wrote in post #14159294
Lloyd! was thiking of you earlier

nice shots. the 17-40 is not terrible *shakes fist*

Haha, I was "tongue in cheek" Baan. How's it hanging?

MOkoFOko wrote in post #14159288
You mean disgusted? Otherwise, I'm not sure I follow the phrasing. I didn't really compare the two a great deal, but to me the 50D was a glorified T1i. Slightly better AF, microadjustment, and better build, but essentially the same.

yes pressed spell check and didnt look where i clicked , I guess I just had it out for the 50D it never did impress me cause I didn't let it.... I went into it as a "this will get me by for now until i can get something new"

DTBaan wrote in post #14159252
what? im still supporting canon. i did mention 1d2n / 1d3 right? :P

Not for long though. You're sounding mighty red, comrade (and by that, I mean Nikon)

*sigh* wrote in post #14159300
I think that's going to be my next lens instead of the 17-55... since I've considering adding a FF later on the 17-40 is the more practical choice...

Especially since I can pretty much get a 17-40 and a sigma 50 1.4 for the price of a 17-55.

Nah. 2.8 and IS > f4 NO IS + a horrible focus machine aka the Crapgma, I call it

Fricks wrote in post #14159276
trust julian. you need the 14-24. you would only need an adapter ring.

nope. i need the whole lot.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …150&N=0&Initial​Search=yes

total is about $1,400.00

laxlife1234 wrote in post #14159296
Ok, but in all honesty my mom isn't going to get me a credit card anytime soon. I can talk to her all I want, but no matter what I say or do she will not give me a credit card at all.

I hate you

Spending thousands of dollars in cash is a bad idea. Surely she has to realize that.

iluxa007 wrote in post #14159324
Nah. 2.8 and IS > f4 NO IS + a horrible focus machine aka the Crapgma, I call it

No not really... I don't really need IS on a 17-40... I don't have shaky hands.

Oh and there are no AF issues with the Sigma 50 if you get a good copy.

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159304
Haha, I was "tongue in cheek" Baan. How's it hanging?

Face-cheek, or rump-cheek?

laxlife1234 wrote in post #14159195
I never really took anything outstanding with this lens. If I own it again I would make an attempt to.

I miss it a lot bcoz' of it's AF but, I have the 24 TS II.

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14159199
you hush....

You can't deny it.

DTBaan wrote in post #14159210
huh? i thought everything on the net was true

iluxa007 wrote in post #14159218
What shall I do to you?! No honestly guys. No more tempting me. I am on the string of doing something about getting 24L soon...

Hehe! It's an amazing piece of glass.

monk3y wrote in post #14159220
that's for sure... why the heck did I let go of my 16-35mm?

You're going to Japan, remember?

L.J.G. wrote in post #14159304
Haha, I was "tongue in cheek" Baan. How's it hanging?

oh ok. see what you did? you got a few haters :P

hows it going Lloyd? what brings you on this late?

*sigh* wrote in post #14159331
No not really... I don't really need IS on a 17-40... I don't have shaky hands.

Oh and there are no AF issues with the Sigma 50 if you get a good copy.

I wouldn't mind it if they added it. 18-55 IS is pretty nice to use