I inherited a 17-40L - Should I keep it?

I mainly do portraits and weddings with a 5D. I recently inherited a 17-40L and was wondering if it may be a useful lens for weddings. I did some test shots around the house (on my kids) and you have to get really close to the subject to fill the frame (like within 2 feet).

I feel like I'm invading someone's personal space when I get that close. I just don't see how I can use a 17-40 to shoot a wedding.

Please advise. Thanks!

Hi Snyper - it's a pretty fantastic lens.... I've had one for about three years now. I bought it to act as a backup to my 24-105 in the event of catastrophic failure in the middle of a job, and also to use as an UWA for my landscape work.

That being said, I almost never using it at a wedding on my 5D. Most of my shots are above UWA, so I'd probably be at the 35-40mm end of that lens much of the time except when doing large groups which are typically down around 24mm. If you inherited it then it means it didn't cost you anything - so just keep it and have fun. Why would get rid of it?

It could actually come in VERY handy at the reception on extremely tight dance floors.

while it might not be that useful during the ceremony, its a fantastic lens on the 5d. I would think it would give you options for the high concept shot. Wide shot of the church, perhaps a portrait of the couple with a dramatic view of the surroundings.

Rather than use it for general purpose use it for shots when you're outside taking photos that include scenery, or make cool skies using a really wide angle. Lloyd's posted some great wide angle examples, but I forget what thread that was in.

Who says you have to have the "subject" fill the frame?

I get a lot of use out of my Sigma 10-20 at weddings and events (on a crop body)

I would keep it!

Yeah, what they said. It's not about pictures of people, it's about pictures of people in big spaces; the outside, their church, etc. If you shoot 1,000 images at a wedding, you probably won't create more than 30 with this lens, but they will be the ones with the most visual impact.

I'm actually debating whether or not to get this lens for myself. I work with a 5D2, but also use a 1.6 camera with a Sigma 10-20 for my UWA. Would I rather have a 17-40 on the 5D2 instead? Or maybe drop the bigger money on the 16-35? Hmmm.

Definitely keep it!

We rented this lens for a wedding last year, great for wide shots in and outside of the church. Also B&G arrived by helicopter and it was fun for shots of them in the chopper (my other half flew with them, no way was I getting in it!!)

We also use full frame although we eventually went for the 16-35 (husband wanted the 17-40 but I really wanted the extra stop )

Booya. Ultrawide is awesome for weddings!

But it's definitely NOT about filling someone up throughout the frame! That's what telephoto is better for!

Ultrawide is best used to bring in a feel for the environment that surrounds your subject. You use the surroundings to tell a story in addition to the subjects you are shooting. It's the opposite of filling a frame with a subject and blurring backgrounds. It's a lot harder to use, as perspective distortion is much harder to contain at lower focal lengths, and you have to be aware of a very large background area, and then you gotta mesh the background and subjects together (or foreground, depending on your composition) in a pleasing manner. It take a lot more thought and planning than a "who cares what's in the background because I'll blur the living snot out of it" shot. As a result, not many people use them in wedding photography, so it is a great way to bring something unique to the market.

Some samples:

So awesome, Lloyd.

Peacefield wrote in post #9891884
I'm actually debating whether or not to get this lens for myself. I work with a 5D2, but also use a 1.6 camera with a Sigma 10-20 for my UWA. Would I rather have a 17-40 on the 5D2 instead? Or maybe drop the bigger money on the 16-35? Hmmm.

Peacefield, I'm in exactly the same boat. Do I get the 17-40, or drop bigger money on the 16-35? I'm stuck.

Snyper, I'd totally keep it. In fact, I find myself wishing someone would bequeath one to me.

Beautiful sampls Lloyd - thanks for sharing; hard to pick a favorite.

Its a horrible lens. In fact I would be willing to take it off your hands and even pay for shipping.

17-40 is a wonderful lens on a 5D. Use it for broad, sweeping shots that have some sort of foreground interest. I'd love to have mine back!

Like that p.o.'d Hampster says, it's terrific on a FF body, especially for interesting landscapes.

=>

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The danger of going wide is framing/composition.

The 17-40L can fit a LOT on FF. I find wides very difficult to handle.