17-40L portrait suitability

Trying to talk myself into the 17-40L, which is pretty easy except that there is some doubt over it's usefuleness as a portrait lens, of which we don't do much but the occasional portrait shoot has come up. If anyone would like to share their model/portrait/wedding shots taken with this lens I'd be grateful. Any comments on this lens and the Tamron 28-75 would also be appreciated. The light weight of these two lenses is a biggish factor.

Hal Littlewood

Hal, the 17-40 is a very nice lens. I've done a few group portrits with mine and they look good. The only problem with shorter lenses like the 17-40 is that a wide aperture is needed many times to get good bokeh. F4 doesn't give me the backgroud look I'm after for many shots (subject close to backgound), but 2.8 would. That said, there are shots where isolating the subject from the background aren't desireable and the 17-40 works well there.

Greetings,
This is not a good lens for portrait, even on a 1.6x crop camera. Its too wide, probably you be on the long end most of the time. Its f4 max aperture gives you too much depth of field, no good for portrait. You are better off getting a ef50 f1.4 or f1.8 just for portrait purpose, the latter gives more than what it costs. Enjoy...

I have the Tamron and its been a great all around lens. 2.8 is soft, F4 is sharp. I did My Daughter's senior pic's and they turned out great. I tried the 17-40 at the camera shop and it seemed soft @17 to Me and 40 seemed short. The 24-105 F4 is a great/sharp lens.

That's the reason I'm having a bit of a problem taliking myself into the lens, we'd like it to be versatile enough to handle the occasional portrait type shoot. The 17-40L seems a cracker of a lens on landscapes and urban, but okay it looks like asking it to cover portrait/model/wedding type shots as well might be a bit too much. Finding a lightweight lens to cover this type of photography is being hard, our 28-135IS is 540gm and we didn't want a lens weighing more than this, all the candidates that have been suggested though are a lot heavier with the exception of the Tamron 28-75.
I was really impressed by the image galleries for the 17-55IS, but being a EF-S I imagine this lens would be even more handicapped than the 17-40L in this type of photography (apart from the fact that it's more expensive and a touch heavier than our benchmark).

Thanks for the input,

Hal Littlewppd

Just wanted to give you my 2 cents, I loved the 17-40 L. The build was great , mine was sharp at both ends even at F/4. You asked for pics and this was one of mine taken at a restaurant with the 17-40 of my gf.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

hal55 wrote in post #4117391
That's the reason I'm having a bit of a problem taliking myself into the lens, we'd like it to be versatile enough to handle the occasional portrait type shoot. The 17-40L seems a cracker of a lens on landscapes and urban, but okay it looks like asking it to cover portrait/model/wedding type shots as well might be a bit too much. Finding a lightweight lens to cover this type of photography is being hard, our 28-135IS is 540gm and we didn't want a lens weighing more than this, all the candidates that have been suggested though are a lot heavier with the exception of the Tamron 28-75.
I was really impressed by the image galleries for the 17-55IS, but being a EF-S I imagine this lens would be even more handicapped than the 17-40L in this type of photography (apart from the fact that it's more expensive and a touch heavier than our benchmark).

Thanks for the input,

Hal Littlewppd

the 17-40L is fine for the occasional portrait type shoot but there are better choices for a dedicated portrait lens.

why would the 17-55 IS be more handicapped? i don't follow you on this one unless you have a FF or 1.3 crop camera ?

ed rader

Thanks for the input, and it's really nice shot of your girlfriend. How did you find the 17-55IS? The gallery photos from it look brilliant, did you find it a good upgrade from the 17-40L and did you notice much difference in reach?

Hal

Just saw Eds post when I hit refresh, having a 350D, which I understand is a 1.6x focal lenght on a standard lens, gives an equivalent of about 65mm for the 17-40L EF, whereas I thought the EF-s lenses were correct as stated, hence the 17-55 remains just that and some 10mm shorter at the long end........or have I got something here totally wrong????

Hal

My website is full of 17-40 portraits, great lens.

From the few that I've opened up they look great! Are the photos though from a mix of lenses or the 17-40L exclusively?? Now that's the type of photography my wife and I would love to be able to do.
Off to work now (sadly not as a photographer), much thanks to everyone and will check the thread a bit later

Hal

hal55 wrote in post #4117565
Just saw Eds post when I hit refresh, having a 350D, which I understand is a 1.6x focal lenght on a standard lens, gives an equivalent of about 65mm for the 17-40L EF, whereas I thought the EF-s lenses were correct as stated, hence the 17-55 remains just that and some 10mm shorter at the long end........or have I got something here totally wrong????

Hal

don't let the ef-s designation confuse you; it only means that the 17-55 can only be used on a 1.6 crop camera which gives it a FOV of 27 - 88 mms, which combined with f 2.8 makes it perfect for portraits.

ed rader

The Ef-s lens length will equate just like the EF does. The 17-55 will seem like 27 to 88mm on your 350.

hal55 wrote in post #4117565
Just saw Eds post when I hit refresh, having a 350D, which I understand is a 1.6x focal lenght on a standard lens, gives an equivalent of about 65mm for the 17-40L EF, whereas I thought the EF-s lenses were correct as stated, hence the 17-55 remains just that and some 10mm shorter at the long end........or have I got something here totally wrong????

Hal

Well I'll be blowed - had that completely wrong, thanks for setting me straight.

Hal

I have both of them. The 17-40 is good for portraits but not great. Tamron is very sharp and the 2.8 is very handy. Good walk around lens.
HP