17-40 F4L

Hello,

I've been thinking of getting a good quality lens to replace my 300D kit lens.
I REALLY want the 24-70mm F2.8L, but it's over $2000CDN.

I've been looking at the 17-40mm F4L, which is half the price at about $1000CDN, and it looks like a sweet lens.

I know that you lose a stop of light at F4, but with the low noise of the 300D, and the fact that newer cameras are always improving in this respect, I can get by.

As far as creative dof blur though, how much of a difference does F2.8 make vs F4 at such shallow focal lengths?

you'll notice a difference in low light situations

further the f4 is a great lens (i got it myself)

i use the what older EOS D30 and it works great on it, so i think that it will work well with the 300D too

I have a 10D and try to shot at 100 ISO, so f2.8-4 would be my preference.
I understand that the Sigma 17-35mm new EX DG series lens has a very good rating.
I for one would like to hear from anybody using this Sigma EX DG lens.

Brian
Winnipeg

I think the difference in focal length is a bigger factor than the difference between f2.8 and f4.0. Any blur you get with the 17-40 is going to be insignificant compared to what is possible with the 50, 85 or even the 70-200.

I recently ran a series of tests with the 28 2.8, 17-40, 85 1.8 and 70-200 comparing dof and bokeh at various apertures and focal length. The 70-200 at 70mm and 2.8 was OK but not significantly better than at 4.0. The clear difference was at 200mm and 2.8.

Similarly, the 28 at 2.8 and the 17-40 at 40mm and f4.0, not a whole lot of difference.

I would argue that you don't buy the 17-40 for bokeh capabilities, its best for landscapes where you would want a wide DOF. In fact, I have taken some out of focus pics of group shots wide open, where it failed to keep everyone in focus, too narrow of DOF, so I now tend to stop it down in these situations. In existing light, this may require higher ISO or you risk subject blur. Before I learned how to use this lens, I thought it wasn't the same caliber as the 70-200, wrong!

Thanks RandyK.
Great info.
8)

drisley -WARNING

I too replaced my Kit lens with the 17-40.

This was my first L lens purchase. My plans were to buy the 70-200 f/4 L next but an unplanned trip to Sedona and the Grand Canyon prompted me to get the 17-40 f/4 first.

I loved the lens. For landscape photography it was by far the best lens I have owned to date. In fact I loved the lens so much that I had the 70-200 f/4 shipped to my hotel in AZ. Figuring out how to pay for all of this is the Warning

I have since added the Tamron 28-75 XR DI f/2.8. as my primary poitrait (general purpose) lens.

If you are not looking specifically for a landscape lens you may want to consider the Tamron as well. It is almost as sharp as my 70-200 f/4. And costs less.

Good Luck!

Michael

Hehe, 2new, that is funny, and very true!

I too have the 70-200 F4L and I love it.
I've seriously been looking at the Tamron, as the reviews are VERY favorable. However, one consistent complaint I've heard here is that it is quite soft wide open, and mainly becomes sharp at about f5.6.

Man, it's such a tough decision.

You know, I was just checking out the Popular Photo lens tests of the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon 24-70mm L, and the Tamron wins, even at F2.8.
Very odd, and confusing.

Tamron 28-75 F2.8
http://www.popphoto.co​m …ownload/8212003​124116.pdf

Canon 24-70 F2.8L
http://www.popphoto.co​m …download/782003​105411.pdf

Drisley, I did that you plan to do, first I bought a 300D kit, then I bought a 70-200 non L, then I traded it to the 70-200f4L, then I upgraded the kit zoom to the 17-40L, and finally II found that these nice lenses demanded a nice body, and I traded the 300D to a new 10D.
So I want to advise you, if you start upgrading your kit zoom, prepare your wallet for new expenses ....

I purchased the 17-40 lens a few months ago, and now this is my favouritel lens and says on the camera most of the time.
The lens is optically very sharp and the colour definition excellent, also its excellent value for money compared to the 24-70 L lens.
Also Ive found using a 35mm and 50mm prime lens with 2x converter and the 17-40 gives me the all the range I want and saves me a lot of money by not buying the 24-70L lens......just a thought.

Good info.

Since I already have the 50mm F1.8, and the 85mm F1.8, I've got a couple very good low light, and portrait lenses. The 70-200mm F4L is an excellent zoom, so I think the 17-40mm might just fit the bill for wide to medium angle.

Ohhhh my god, I should never have joined this forum, another lens to add to the wish list. This is killing me...... 8)


Just kidding But I may need to find a way to get more money to buy all those expensive L lenses.

You'll be really happy with the 17-40L - go get it!

Cheers,
Barry

One more little push in the direction of your new 17-40L....

The 17-40L is small, light, has a very nice metal finish - it really has a high quality look and feel (much more than my plastic 28-135). It doesn't extend when zooming or focussing (the zoom and focussing mechanism are entirely internal). It has a very nice rubber seal around the lens mount to make it weather proof. It not only works great on the 300D and 10D, but also on my EOS 30 (Elan 7E). 17mm is really wide on a full frame body...

f/4 vs. f/2.8 doesn't make a lot of difference. The DOF will be large anyway, because of the short focal length.

The 17-40 is definitely a bargain for an L lens.

Ok, this is the drop.. Thank you all guys, for once again ruining my financial situation! Happy now?? Looks like there's some more money headed B&H's way now Have to throw in the BIG-ED also I think, to give my camera some masculinity again, to compensate for the light weight of the 17-40