17-40L

Im thinking about picking this lens up once I get my tax return back later this month. But I have been seeing mixed reviews about this lens, Just wondering what everyones thoughts are about it? Im going to be using it for a lot of racing stuff like in the pits and head shots but was wondering if it would be a good wedding lens, I have a few friends that are getting married this year and they want me to shoot them.

Thanks
-BA

I'd look at the 17-55mm 2.8 if you don't need full frame.

go for the 17-55

The 17-40 may cause a lot of distortion if you use it at wide focal lengths for portraits. I've used it for headshots and the results for fine at the 40mm mark.

It may not do well in dimly lit churches for weddings (at least not without flash support).

As posted above, you may want to consider the 17-55 Ef-s lens instead. Twice as fast with the extra stop, and IS.

I <3 my 17-40L. Like, actually, love it. I'm planning on proposing to it soon.

If you're going to shoot an indoor wedding, it may not be fast enough...otherwise, it's God's gift to photography.

If you plan to go full frame in a few years then I would get the 17-40, otherwise the 17-55 2.8 as mentioned is a great piece.

I have a 17-40 and really like it, but I use it for landscape on my 7D.

You will find that for what you want to use it for, it will be to short on the long end.

Go with the 17-55 or if you think you can get away with 24mm on your wide end go for the 24-70 or 24-105.

go with the 17-55mm 2.8.

the 17-40L is meant more as an ultra wide on a FF cam

I have both the 17-40 and the 17-55. Both are wonderful lenses but I much prefer the 17-55 on the 7D.

Actually, I also had the 10-22 but decided to sell it as I was using the 17-40 on the 5DII and I sort of regret the decision. The 10-22 on the 7D did better than the 17-40 on the 5D.

For weddings, the 17-40 f/4 may not cut it, otherwise it's a great lens. I am going to echo the others, the 17-55mm is the ideal choice for a crop, especially for lower light work.

I have de 17-40 and i love it!!

I've haven't had (yet) the opportunity of testing it in weddings, how ever i recently shot in a concert and it did work very well for me even though the low light conditions.

I guess it isn't ideal depending on how you work, using a 50D + 3200 iso + 1/50 (in the "backstage" without spotlights before the presentation) and the work came out pretty good i think, i did edit them, bring up light and noise reduction.

I think you can manage it without a flash, however it does require a little extra time editing, using bursts if you use really slow speeds, and of course if you don't mind too much about noise or a little loss of quality in the images. How ever i think it also depends on where and how will you be using the pictures. Most of my clients won't make very large prints, or watch the pictures at 100% in their computers, so i don't think it's a reeeeeeaal problem the noise thing.

You can see the pictures here in case you want to see some samples:

http://www.facebook.co​m …100001695671439​&aid=22991

I don't know if the album is public however

BTW i've never had any problems using flash in churches at weddings so i'm not that worried about flash, and i think most of the times i find some where to bounce the flash, so i don't worry too much about the F4 any more, i think it's all about finding some kind of "cheat" to make up the lack of fast lenses

PWard wrote in post #11701025
The 17-40 may cause a lot of distortion if you use it at wide focal lengths for portraits. I've used it for headshots and the results for fine at the 40mm mark.

It may not do well in dimly lit churches for weddings (at least not without flash support).

As posted above, you may want to consider the 17-55 Ef-s lens instead. Twice as fast with the extra stop, and IS.

... or other wedding sites. At my wedding the kid I hired shot the reception with a 17-40. Lots of blurry shots. Fair amount of perspective distortion.

Just got a 17-40 myself. Love it. Great for outdoors, not sure about indoor church shots though...

gjl711 wrote in post #11701581
Actually, I also had the 10-22 but decided to sell it as I was using the 17-40 on the 5DII and I sort of regret the decision. The 10-22 on the 7D did better than the 17-40 on the 5D.

Me too. I replaced my 10-22 with a 17-40 when I got my 5dII and I am going to sell it as soon as I can afford the upgrade to a 16-35. I find the 17-40 really soft at the at the edges when shooting wide. I also find the f4 limiting.