Just wondering....
BiikeMike Senior Member 656 posts Joined Aug 2006 Location: Richmond, VA More info | Sep 13, 2006 17:24 | #1 Just wondering.... 30D w/Grip; 10Dw/Grip; 70-200 f/4 L; 17-40 f/4 L; Canon 50mm 1.8 II,; Tokina 10-17 f/3.5-4.5; 580EX, 430EX. lotsa' memory, lotsa' batteries. Macbook Pro 2.16 15" w/2 gigs RAM. Mac Pro 2.66 Quad w/5 gigs RAM. Adobe CS3/Lightroom
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Billginthekeys Billy the kid 7,359 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2005 Location: Islamorada, FL More info | Sep 13, 2006 17:25 | #2 New? i believe the 70-200 F4, then the 17-40 F4 and the 200 2.8 prime Mr. the Kid.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
malla1962 Cream of the Crop 7,714 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jul 2004 Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk More info | Billginthekeys wrote: New? i believe the 70-200 F4, then the 17-40 F4 and the 200 2.8 prime And all very good value.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aero145 Senior Member 909 posts Joined May 2006 Location: Germany More info | Sep 13, 2006 17:27 | #4 70-200 f/4L vs. 17-40 f/4L. EOS 5D Mark II | EF24-105 f/4L IS | EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS | EF200 f/2.8L II | 580EX | Manfrotto 055xProB + 808RC4, and 679B
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Billginthekeys Billy the kid 7,359 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2005 Location: Islamorada, FL More info | Sep 13, 2006 17:31 | #5 well, they both serve very different purposes. my 17-40 is sharp as a tack. if you need a good wide angle, at that price it certainly is a great lens. Mr. the Kid.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SuzyView Cream of the Crop More info | Sep 13, 2006 17:34 | #6 Yes, it is the 70-200 f4, don't think the new IS version will be anywhere close to that price. I just got one and love it already. Funny though, the L primes are way more expensive than the zooms. Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jgl927 Member 152 posts Joined Mar 2006 More info | aero145 wrote: Isn't 70-200 f/4L much sharper and has better IQ than the 17-40 f/4L? Of course it lacks the weather sealing for the 1-series bodies. I have both and would not say that the 17-40 is less sharp. As previously stated they are for different purposes and both are excellent.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aero145 Senior Member 909 posts Joined May 2006 Location: Germany More info | Billginthekeys wrote: well, they both serve very different purposes. my 17-40 is sharp as a tack. if you need a good wide angle, at that price it certainly is a great lens. I understand VERY well that they serve different purposes, but my 70-200 f/4L produces much better results than my friend's 17-40 f/4L. EOS 5D Mark II | EF24-105 f/4L IS | EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS | EF200 f/2.8L II | 580EX | Manfrotto 055xProB + 808RC4, and 679B
LOG IN TO REPLY |
elader Goldmember 2,374 posts Likes: 1 Joined Nov 2005 Location: Maryland More info | Sep 13, 2006 18:19 | #9 I own both. I will never, ever, part with the 70-200 f/4 except to replace it with a 70-200 f/2.8 for HS football. The 17-40 is a great lens, but if you are strapped for cash, I would look at the tamron f2.8 17-50. Eric
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JNunn Senior Member 538 posts Joined May 2006 More info | aero145 wrote: 70-200 f/4L vs. 17-40 f/4L. Am I right that 17-40 f/4L is more complicated in design, that's what makes it more expensive? Isn't 70-200 f/4L much sharper and has better IQ than the 17-40 f/4L? Of course it lacks the weather sealing for the 1-series bodies. I've got both of these lenses too, and for sharpness its a toss-up. I don't think either one is as sharp as my 100mm macro though...but we're REALLY splitting hairs - they're all very sharp!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CyberDyneSystems Admin (type T-2000) More info | Sep 13, 2006 19:43 | #11 Telephotos are by nature sharper than wide angles. It's the nature of the type of lens itself, not restricted to the 17-40mm in any way. GEAR LIST
LOG IN TO REPLY |
papucla10 Senior Member 392 posts Joined Jul 2006 More info | Sep 13, 2006 22:39 | #12 I would get the Tamron 17-50mm Canon 50D & 20D - Kodak M1033, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Canon 28-105 f/3.5-5.6, 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
aero145 Senior Member 909 posts Joined May 2006 Location: Germany More info | CyberDyneSystems wrote: Telephotos are by nature sharper than wide angles. It's the nature of the type of lens itself, not restricted to the 17-40mm in any way. Ah, I understand. EOS 5D Mark II | EF24-105 f/4L IS | EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS | EF200 f/2.8L II | 580EX | Manfrotto 055xProB + 808RC4, and 679B
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mdr Goldmember 1,167 posts Joined Jan 2005 Location: Glasgow, Scotland More info | Sep 14, 2006 07:27 | #14 There are much cheaper L lenses, for example a second hand 100-300 f5.6 L... Marc
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DoubleNegative *sniffles* 10,533 posts Likes: 11 Joined Mar 2006 Location: New York, USA More info | Sep 14, 2006 10:23 | #15 A used one. La Vida Leica!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2876 guests, 175 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||