17-40L users

i only use my 17-40 for work. i like me 50mm1.4 as my walk around lens.when the lighting is right its the 70-200mm f4 every time, thats my favorite lens .

Thanks for the reply. I think I just have to get the 17-40!

I also like the idea of the weather sealing. I also treat my lenses the best I can, but I often find myself shooting in light rain. Touch wood, so far, its hasn't effected any of my lenses, and I don't do it often, but its nice to know that with L glass its a lot more resistant.

So a good friend for the 17-40? 70-200 f4? a 50mm? I'll ban me from using my 28-105mm for a while and see how I get on, although that said, I haven't used it that much since I've bought it

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238201
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!

Yes the 10-22 and 24-105 go together well. The 17-40 will be sharper between 17-and 24 and is a more useful focal length for most walk around. More importantly if you do a lot of night work the flare characteristics of the 17-40 are a lot better than the 24-105, the 10-22 is not to bad for flare but not as good as the 17-40.

Definatly the 50mm. It's cheap if you get the 1.8 and you won't look back. Great shallow depth of field and super sharp optics and simply no distortion. Great fun to use just on it's own.

The 70-200 i have heard is superb but you said you would miss the 200-300 range as I know I would. I have looked for alternatives but in the price range the 70-200 is the best quality. The only next step I have really really thought about is the 100-400L which has many fans but is pricey. I may well give in to this though.

Awesome OK thanks! I am getting the impression that in this range, the 17-40 is almost the ultimate lens? I notice in various users of this forum, their signatures note that they also own this lens, and its a lot of users too so it must be good!

I think with the 24-105 that I still wouldn't find it wide enough for a walkabout for me. I think that for me, I would use the 17-40 more often, so If I were to go with the 10-22 and 24-105, I would be using the 10-22 more often, then finding that 22mm has no reach at all! If ya understand?

Esh, that was too complicated for a Thursday morning for me (10am here in the uk)

It sounds like youve decided on the 17-40 and at this price I think it hard to beat but it would probably sit on your camera most of the time and I cant help thinking that sometimes you'll wish it was a bit faster and most of the time you'll wish it was a bit longer.
This is my reservation with the 17-40 which is why I will probably go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 alot of reviews match its results up there with the 17-40, which is what's important for me. Not to mention half the price.

Hi, looking at your sig, you've almost got the same setup as me at the moment!

I've looked at the Tamron too. A while back, however, I owned a Sigma 24-70EX and I thought it was terrible. The focusing was slow, it was missing and had major problems. It wasn't as nice to use as my "cheap" Canon kit lens. I know its vein, but since this, its put me off buying anything non-Canon.

I've had a number of the options around the wider/walkaround range, including the 17-40mm L and 24-105mm IS L, and got good results with them all. the IS L is about as good as it gets on a FF, but too long too often at 24mm for a crop body in my experience.

Really the shooter is more important than the lens but I see why people must have their L fix. Shame, at the moment the best bang per buck is the Sigma 17-70mm DC which I use more than anything else. Yes, my 17-40mm is 'better' but it costs way more than twice as much. I would need to pixel peep 100% to really, really notice. I can go through my gallery and not see much difference in shots taken with any of my lenses actually, but they are all decent quality optics. Maybe my eyes are shot

So, if you are anti-Sigma then the most practical cost/bang/ego wise is the 17-40mm L. It really is a lovely lens and just works without fuss. If you like WA shots then I would actually keep your current Canon which is a very capable lens in the right hands (like any lens!) and get an ultra-wide tho'. Bit of a pain changing lenses, which will happen a lot on walkaround from experience, but in the right situation hard to beat the ultra-wide look. I think personally the Tokina 12-24mm f4 is the best bang in ultra-wides, but again you want Canon so you will have to pay over the odd's However, the 17-40mm is what I would go for if I was sticking to Canon.

I was in the same position as you, then I bought the 17-40 to replace the kit lens. Despite the short range it's a really handy lens and I find that if I need longer I can switch to my telephoto. I only bought 50mm for portraits.

It's very sharp at the wide end has great colour and contrast so for me it's the perfect landscape lens. 17 is just the right wideness without creating distortion.

I bought from a seller on ebay who imports from the US so I got it for about £430. Let me know if you want any more details.

Dazecoop wrote in post #2238304
Hi, looking at your sig, you've almost got the same setup as me at the moment!

I've looked at the Tamron too. A while back, however, I owned a Sigma 24-70EX and I thought it was terrible. The focusing was slow, it was missing and had major problems. It wasn't as nice to use as my "cheap" Canon kit lens. I know its vein, but since this, its put me off buying anything non-Canon.

I am also apprehensive, but havn't heard any horror stories about the Tamron, I would buy from a shop rather than the net in this case.
I think the 17-40 is excellent as a landscape lens but not sure that f4 and 40mm is ideal for general purpose. Otherwise it would bean obvious winner.....

del

Awesome, thanks so much for all your replies.

It sounds bad to be anti non-Canon, but I find it funny that I pay more for a Sigma which is actually worse than my kit lens, and worse than a lens which is £100 cheaper. Since that, its just put me off. I'll be paying more for Canon for equivilient optics, but it seems to me that non-Canon lenses differ copy-to-copy more than Canon stuff does.

Eh, I sound like a Canon salesman!

Anyway, thanks all for your really helpful replies. I'll be popping into my local camera store soon to check out the 17-40 (again). I dont think I'll find the f4 to be a problem. The 18-55 wide open at 55mm is f5.6, and I don't find that much of a problem for the stuff I do. Im either in broad daylight, or on a tripod and nothing in between.

The only thing I think I'll get is after buying and using the 17-40, I think my 75-300 will just seem really bad quality, so I will just have to fork out more for some more L glass. Ah well!

muscleflex wrote in post #2238474
you know - all this talk about filling in missing spaces between a 17-40 and a 70-200, why not walk forward or backward to get the required frame?
or crop during processing???

Yes, I fully agree. Its a good quality lens, so I should be able to crop to 80-100% without a problem. I can also walk, which helps!

Hi there,

I got my nifty 1.8 this morning so i feel complete (for the time-being)

i got my 350D with the kit lens then bought a sigma 70-300, then the 17-40L and now i have that little gap in between (plus for indoor photos its perfect)!

hth

Rico.

Nice one, thats pretty much the same setup as I am aiming for. Can't wait to get a nifty-fifty, but trying to save for the L glass!