17-40L users

Hi guys,

A bit new here, so I'll quickly introduce myself! I'm 19 years old, from the UK and I am a website developer for a local Internet company. Photography is one of my main hobbies, and I currently own ...

a Canon 350d, 18-55mm kit USM lens, 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM, 75-300 USM and a Speedlite 430Ex, plus a really nice Lowepro bag.

I recently got the 28-105 for my walkabout lens, but I am finding that 28mm on my 350d is not wide enough. I can't (and dont yet) want to buy a full-frame body camera, so I am looking to sell that and get something else.

The perfect situation would be a lens which covers the range 18mm to 105 mm, so my first thought was the 17-85mm IS USM lens. Its perfect, but call me a snob, I have a thing about L-glass. Its camera-porn, and I adore the quality of the L series lenses, so I am not sure what to do now.

I mainly shoot night photography at 18mm with my kit lens (it does the job), but also enjoy a number of other types of photography. I shoot some portraits, cars (stationary and moving), shallow DoF shots, landscapes, etc

So, my question, I am really thinking about getting the 17-40mm f4 L, but, what other lenses to people use with this lens?

It goes without saying, a 50mm (of some kind) is needed - next on my list - but what about the 50mm-up range? 70-200 f4 (f2.8 is out of my price range) seems not bad, but 200mm isn't enough reach for me, and 70mm is too much on the wide-end.

Help! and thanks in advance!

It's going to be hard for you to decide because of the crop factor of your current camera and your thoughts about buying a full frame camera. I just bought the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L for both my cameras (20D= 1.6 crop and 5D= full frame). This allows me to have the range covered as: 16-35mm (full frame) and 38-112mm (1.6 crop). I plan on buying the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS as a walk-around lens for both cameras.

I hope this helps.

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Re-reading my post, I don't honestly think I will be thinking about upgrading to a full-frame body in a LONG time, so that can be drawn off. I think I may be upgrading to a 400d (just by chance, not intentional) in the next week or so. I am fully happy with the 350d/400d, so I don't intend on jumping to full-frame for a while.

I also was thinking about the 24-105mm L as a walk-around lens, but I feel that 24mm on a 1.6x crop would not be wide enough. I am finding that my 28-105mm lens I have at the moment is no where near as wide as I would like for a walk-about lens, so I am tending to use my 18-55 kit lens more often (but its not great quality and I hate the moving front!)

So, the 17-40mm is almost certainly a buy for me, but I would need something to go between the gap. I'm not sure on buying the 24-105mm L, since its not quite wide enough, and not quite long enough! Erh, hard choices!!

Thanks so far!

The 17-40L is probably your most reasonably priced move. I have one and its my main walkaround lens. The 17-55 IS is also a possibility, but at over $1,000 (here in the US), it might be a bit over your budget. If not its supposed to be a great lens, not an L but with most of the attributes.

As far as the gap in focal lengths, why not go with a couple of prime lenses instead of a zoom. You'll get better resolution in general, and at a cheaper cost. Of course if you have to have L then the 70-200L is your best bet.

If you're gonna go wide, you might as well go Wide. Try the 10-22, and the 24-105 to go along with it.

Sigma has a 17-70, Tamaron has a 17-50 f/2.8 that are both decent.

That being said the 17-40L and the 70-200L or 100-400L makes a very nice set.

I love my 17-40L. The 28-105 is also a fine lens, but the 17-40L will give you amazing results. I find 17mm is adequate on a 1.6x crop, though I think I'd prefer something like 15mm... anyway, you run into engineering difficulties with UWA of those lengths.

17-40L... got it, love it. Buy it =)

so many choices ...so little time .... I love my 17-40
but I have a gap between 40 and 50 and 70 ... so I am getting a 28-70 tamron this week

Then maybe another prime thinking 85 or 100 we can never have enough glass ..

greg20d wrote in post #2237305
so many choices ...so little time .... I love my 17-40
but I have a gap between 40 and 50 and 70 ... so I am getting a 28-70 tamron this week

Then maybe another prime thinking 85 or 100 we can never have enough glass ..

I also have a gap between my 40, 50, and 70. Not really missing it, but kinda wanna fill it. I had a 24-70EX before, and got rid of it MAINLY cos it didn't have a fast focussing motor.

Thinking of picking up the 28-105 actually.... but have no money for glass now. heh.

Thank you all for your replies!

yonni wrote in post #2236823
If you're gonna go wide, you might as well go Wide. Try the 10-22, and the 24-105 to go along with it.

I was also thinking this. But I think I would have the same problem as I do now, the 24-105 being not wide enough as my walk-about.

I've have a Sigma 24-70EX already, and I hated it. It was terribly soft, slow focusing, I think it had front/back focus problems, so I swapped it for some money-back, and my 28-105mm USM. That being said, I am not a fan of 3rd party offerings.

I was thinking of my "new" set (in the long run) of being 17-40, 50mm, and 70-200. The only thing I can think of that I might find annoying is swapping lenses so often, since I don't have a lens which is both long and wide. (eg, 17-85mm!) Although, I know that zoom range decreases quality in general.

How do you guys get on with it? I know that the first couple months owning my 350d with its 18-55 and 75-300, I didn't enjoy walking about, since I couldn't quite get in close enough with the kit lens, so I swapped to the 75-300 and found that I couldn't fit the whole subject in!

I guess its gotta either be a 17-85 (no L:cry or 17-40 L and a 24-105 L.

Thanks to all for your replies so far! Very much appreciated

If you aren't loaded with cash, you are going to have to go for f/4 lenses, and the 17-40 makes a fantastic walk-about. it does overlap a LOT with the 24-105 IS lens - so as you already have the kit lens covering 18mm, you might prefer to get the 24-105 L as your first L - it's a great lens, an excellent price considering it has IS and is wider than your current 28mm.

When you need to go longer, the 70-200 f/4 is superb. I'd be inclined to suggest get the tele zoom first, as you already have the other mm covered with your consumer glass.

I had exactly the same dilema with my lens choices and was considering the same lenses you were. Afer some serious research into the sigma and tamron equivilants I ended up getting the 17-40 for my walk about. I did consider the 17-85 but have read alot about barrel distortion and edge softness.

I also got a nifty fifty and a cheaper telephoto 70-300. I am not that fussed about the gaps on the focal lengths but thats because my main subject is landscapes. I think it is important to the type of photography you do. I don't find myself reaching above the 40mm much with landscape shots. If I go to the zoo I don't use anything but the 70-300. So what type of photography do you do most? If you would find yourself reaching past 40mm alot then you will soon get miffed.

Aside from that my 17-40mm is superb and blew away all my worries of people claims of slight softness and I highly recommend it. Many people mentioned it's fast accurate focusing. At the time thought optics were most important and I would rather pay less as long as the optics were upto scratch and the focusing just worked ok but considering that you focus is probably the most important thing to get right in a shot. Unless your metering is way off you can sufficently recover the rest in PP but bad focus is more or less throw away.

I do crack out the 50mm occasionally to cover the range but not that much. I do so knowing the 50mm will be even sharper than the 17-40 and I will not be missing out.

Hi Steve, thanks for the advise there, it makes sense, and thinking about it further, like you say the 17-40 and 24-105 overlap a bit much.

I am finding more and more that I am not using my telezoom as much as my wide angle. I general shoot things very wide, and then sometimes just "normal" (40-50mm), but not much which is in the tele range - at least not in the Winter it seems?

I am also shooting a lot of night photography and want the quality of those shots to be spot on. My 18-55 kit lens is a good quality lens, it must be said, but I find that it misses focus sometimes since the front rotates and wobbles so much!

After what you've said, I'm thinking maybe the 10-22 and 24-105 would go well together, although I have seen and used the 17-40 and it is just fantastic.

Im not loaded with cash, but I can feel a feaver of some kind coming on with just needing more glass. Help!

Thanks again for that reply! I was posting my reply while you were I guess!

I'll just tell you quickly what I photograph at the moment. I am heavily a fan of wide angle and ultra-wide stuff, so the 10-22 is on the books in the futuer no matter what. I like fisheye lenses, but for the price I think its limited use for me. I shoot night and long time exposures mostly, with my 18-55mm.

Other than that, I am starting to get into portrait and model photography, some macro and close-up work, as well as the odd zoo trip! During the summer I attend a lot of motorsport events where my 75-300 is used all the time to get in real close to the cars and drivers. But it is mostly wide angle night photography I shoot.

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238206
Thanks again for that reply! I was posting my reply while you were I guess!

I'll just tell you quickly what I photograph at the moment. I am heavily a fan of wide angle and ultra-wide stuff, so the 10-22 is on the books in the futuer no matter what. I like fisheye lenses, but for the price I think its limited use for me. I shoot night and long time exposures mostly, with my 18-55mm.

Other than that, I am starting to get into portrait and model photography, some macro and close-up work, as well as the odd zoo trip! During the summer I attend a lot of motorsport events where my 75-300 is used all the time to get in real close to the cars and drivers. But it is mostly wide angle night photography I shoot.

Then I would say the 17-40L. I love what the colour/contrast and sharpness it gives me.

Just to add one more thing. I didn't think the robustness and weather sealing would be useful enough to justify the price difference and that no matter what lens I got I would treat it like a small baby. I was out on Saturday walking up a peak in Snowdonia. The ground was very rough and a little hard to see where your going which is something I am used to but I never saw the hole that my front leg fell into. My leg just dissappeared down this cut in the ground which was hidden below the undergrowth and I didnt stop falling until my hip hit the floor. I was carrying my camera at the time and it happed so quick the lens hit the wet grass verge first. It wasn't as bad as an impact as if it had hit a rock but it was bad enough and it also go soaking wet. I have to ask would a lesser built lens have survived this? Needless to say the 17-40L laughed and shrugged it off