Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Feb 2009 (Thursday) 19:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EOS 50D + 17-40 L = ?

 
Martin.D
Goldmember
Avatar
2,460 posts
Gallery: 150 photos
Likes: 4085
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Brit living in Germany
     
May 18, 2009 08:49 as a reply to  @ post 7942122 |  #31

Good thread with some good pointers, I too have been advised to get a 17-40 L lens for my 50D - I'm thinking to sell my Sigma 17-70 and purchase the 17-40 instead for the better image quality..


Web Site (external link)
Facebook (external link)
Instagram (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Canon 5D Mark IV + Canon 90D + Glass

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
May 18, 2009 08:51 |  #32

I agree with Smorter.... I don't see the fascination with the 17-40 on a crop, compared to what else is available out there. I would be swapping lenses every 5 minutes. Then again, I am not a 17-5n fan on a crop either.

The 17-40 is not very wide and it's too short on a crop, imo. Couldn't care less if it is an L.

Would still buy a UW like a 10-22 and would need a mid sized zoom like a 24-70. The 17-40 is a solution looking for a problem on a crop, imo.

On a FF, it's a totally different animal. Equivalent to the 10-22 on a crop.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
May 18, 2009 10:47 |  #33

The 17-40L comes alive on a 5D. However barrel distortion starts to clean up at aprox 30mm or so. You'll see some "fisheye" distortion photos that look great but when I see an album filled with that perspective it gets tiring IMO. I purchased the 17-40L specifically for group shot of cars for my car club for my 5D. My 17-40L is virtually brand new with almost no useage if you compare to the other lenses I have in my gear bag.

For indoors with a crop body its f/4 aperature is limiting and flash is almost necessary for bounce. More versatility can be had with a Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50EX. For more beans if you want the best alternative for a crop you'd seriously look into the 17-55IS.

Since I am also not a fan of 17-xx zooms I'll use my 24-70L more than both of my short zooms.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,271 posts
Likes: 2110
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
May 18, 2009 13:09 |  #34

I don't like it...

The 17-40L is a fine lens and is great for a full frame camera. However, I never liked it on a 1.6x crop camera because:

1. Although it is a neat wide angle lens on a full frame camera, it is really more of a mid-range zoom on a 1.6x camera.

2. As a mid-range zoom, f/4 is just not fast enough.

3. As a mid-range zoom the 40mm long side (64mm equivalent) is just not long enough.

I used the 17-40L combined with a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a 30D and a 40D and really missed the 40mm to 70mm gap.

I also felt that I needed a wide angle lens to back up the 17-40L on 1.6x format equipment.

My present combination is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as my mid-range zoom along with the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

The 17-55mm is a much better mid-range zoom because of the constant f/2.8 aperture, great IS and the 88mm equivalent long end.

I don't miss the 55mm to 70mm gap at all.

I will often carry a 12-24mm Tokina for really tight spots. However the 17-55mm + 70-200mm + 1.4x TC is plenty for most of my shooting.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XJS999
Member
75 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
May 18, 2009 13:20 |  #35

bohdank wrote in post #7942643 (external link)
I agree with Smorter.... I don't see the fascination with the 17-40 on a crop, compared to what else is available out there. I would be swapping lenses every 5 minutes.

The 17-40 is not very wide and it's too short on a crop, imo. Couldn't care less if it is an L.

Would still buy a UW like a 10-22 and would need a mid sized zoom like a 24-70. The 17-40 is a solution looking for a problem on a crop, imo.

Totally agree that 17-40 on a crop is either not wide enough or not long enough. This was my 2nd L lens and I constantly wished for more reach and on the wide side, 17mm * 1.6 is really not wide at all. As you see from my sig, I went with 10-20 and 24-105.

The only thing I don't agree is not caring for an L, which I do care a great deal (construction, consistancy and pride of ownership).


40D, 70-200 F2.8L, 24-105 F4L, 50 1.4, Sigma 10-20, Kenko Pro 300DG 1.4x, Calumet Genesis 200 (2), OLY FL36, 285HV (2), CTR-301P, Benro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
May 18, 2009 14:00 |  #36

IMHO, a lens starting at 17mm on a crop is superior to one starting at 24mm or 28mm. I would actually prefer 15-40 than 17-50 though.

Many people have expressed that a 10-22 and 24-105 combo creates a "bad break point", requiring frequent changing of lenses, and have subsequently gone back to a 17-55, 17-40 or kit lens after that combo.

You would do less lens changing for example with a 10-22, 17-40 and 55-250 IS than you would a 10-22 and 24-105 IS for landscape phootgraphy. The overlap allows you to keep a lens on for longer periods.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yashart
Senior Member
460 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
     
May 18, 2009 19:32 as a reply to  @ Mike55's post |  #37

I use 17-40L on my 40D as a primary walk around lens, and couldn't be happier. I had the 17-55 and sold for the 17-40L. The extra stop of light was nice, but the color, contrast, and build quality of the 17-40 blows the 17-55 out the water. IS is not a worthwhile feature in the 17-55 range if you ask me...

You can get the 17-40, 50 1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 for about the same price as the 17-55(new), and you'll have much better lens setup IMO.


YHT STUDIOS (external link)
Canon 5DII | Flipside 300 | Canon 85L | Canon 200L | Sigma 50mm

Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sol95
Senior Member
661 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 18, 2009 20:44 |  #38

the 17-40 is a great lens that i've enjoyed.

but after recently getting the Tokina 11-16, i have not used it much at all. i'm torn as to whether i should sell it or not, as it's a wonderful copy and sharp wide-open, not to mention the colours...

but back to the original point, 50D with 17-40L is a great set up. It's a bit short on the long end, but you could possibly make up for it by getting closer to the shot by foot :)


Bodies: 5D mk III
Lenses: 50 f/1.2L | 85 f/1.2L II | 100 f/2.8L IS Macro | 17-40 f/4.0L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Accessories: 430EX II | TC-80N3 M43: Olympus E-PM1 | Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42 II R | Panasonic 14 f/2.5 | Panasonic 20 f/1.8 | Olympus m.Zuiko 45 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
May 18, 2009 21:15 |  #39

Mike55 wrote in post #7944399 (external link)
IMHO, a lens starting at 17mm on a crop is superior to one starting at 24mm or 28mm. I would actually prefer 15-40 than 17-50 though.

Many people have expressed that a 10-22 and 24-105 combo creates a "bad break point", requiring frequent changing of lenses, and have subsequently gone back to a 17-55, 17-40 or kit lens after that combo.

You would do less lens changing for example with a 10-22, 17-40 and 55-250 IS than you would a 10-22 and 24-105 IS for landscape phootgraphy. The overlap allows you to keep a lens on for longer periods.

I do no lens swapping back and forth with my shorter lineup 10-22/28-75. They are different lenses used for very different things, for me. I tend to swap more with the 28-75/70-200 when I am out.

It really depends on the individual and what subject matter you mostly shoot. And that's really the point. What is right for me may not be right for you, and vice versa.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zoom_zoom
Senior Member
903 posts
Likes: 66
Joined Dec 2008
Location: AB, Canada
     
May 19, 2009 05:24 |  #40

I have the 17-40 as my main walk-around lens on my crop body. It's a great lens, but I do agree with everyone saying that it is a little short on the long side. I carry a 50mm with me to get the extra reach when necessary.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrew_a
Member
Avatar
85 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: 313
     
Jun 04, 2009 21:40 |  #41

I have the 17-40 and I absolutely love it! I used it on an XT and it was great and my 50D should arrive tomorrow! I'm gonna post some pics over at this thread.


gear
50D | 17-40 f/4L | 70-200 f/4L | 50 f/1.8 | kit lens | bags, cards, batteries, and passion for photography :D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
atu
Member
Avatar
137 posts
Joined May 2009
     
Jun 04, 2009 21:56 |  #42

Love my 17-40L! Its a bit short I agree but I'm not in professional use so I'm quite happy with the result it comes out .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,860 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EOS 50D + 17-40 L = ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is txlaflash
848 guests, 243 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.