Been playing with the 17-40 have questions

cwphotos

So I borrowed a 17-40L from a member of my local photoclub so that I could see if it is what I wanted for the 2006 shootout. I like it a lot...though the lens hood is friggin huge !!!! But now my question. Given the 1.6x crop on the rebel xt does this lens show me more than my 18-55mm EFS kit lens? If it doesnt why then would I want to get this? And also would I then not be better off getting the 10-22mm EFS lens for more wide angleness?

Thanks all.

HeldDown

It's showing you 1.6mm more view on your XT -- negligable, really. The reason to buy it is the quality; you just can't compare the poor little kit lens to L glass.

cwphotos

Ok thats what I was feelin but wasnt sure. I really love the weather seals and the internal focus as well.

Eric&Susan

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but if you body isn't weather sealed ( 1 series) then it doesn't matter if you lens' are weather sealed or not. So don't let that be a deciding factor.

You might also find that 17 will not be wide enough alot of times. You mention the 10-22, have you thought about the sigma 10-20. That is next on my list.

My .02

Eric

ginger_55

I had a 17-40L and loved it. Never really used the kit lens. Now I have a 16-35L f 2.8 (Andy's suggestion, and I love it, too.) It is heavier than the 17-40, I was surprised, all the faster lenses that I bought seem heavier, are heavier. I never used the hood, but don't tell Fish if he shows up again as he did cartwheels to get me that hood.

I have the 10-22 now. Have had it a month or so and I have gotten some photos I love with it. But I still consider it a specialty lens, that may be just me. I tend to pull it out when I do........ But the 16-35 is my walk about lens, unless I am shooting birds. (Oh, I am thinking like the 16-35 is like the 17-40, I use it the same).

ginger

cwphotos

Thanks for the tips folks. The only issue with the suggestion on the Sigma is that Im a brand whore....I cant stand other brands....mainly just because no on has ever been able to convince me that they are comparible to Canon. Frankly im at the end of my rope with the debate in my head. I need 1 lens for the trip and right now its between the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4 lens. I have about 7-800 to spend and no more. Im so confused because I want the best gear I can get to maximize the pics I can get because the awesome opportunity is there. cry

wxwax

The 17-40 will serve you well.

But let's be honest - no single lens will get you every single shot. Can't be done. You may well see some shots that can only be made with a lens you don't have. Just accept it, shrug, and move on.

I suspect you'll find a wider lens more useful than a longer one, but I'll defer to more experienced landscape photographers on that issue.

cwphotos

Ok thanks that makes more sense. Some say go long some say go wide...Im like "hey I can only do one " !!!:D

The search continues....

Bystander

cwphotos wrote:

Ok thanks that makes more sense. Some say go long some say go wide...Im like "hey I can only do one " !!!:D

The search continues....

Seems like what you need is the next generation Bigma -- the 5 - 1000 F2.8! Along with a wheelbarrow!!

Scott_Quier

Bystander wrote:

Seems like what you need is the next generation Bigma -- the 5 - 1000 F2.8! Along with a wheelbarrow!!

Nah, by the time the next generation of this lens comes out, in this size, they will have figured out how to build such a beast such that it is under 5 inches (10cm) in length and weights less than 2 lbs (1kg).

Oh, and the cost? It will come in at under $500 US

(See, I can talk metric:):)

DavidTO

Unless you're shooting birds or sports, go wide.

Cat_Shark

cwphotos wrote:

Ok thanks that makes more sense. Some say go long some say go wide...Im like "hey I can only do one " !!!:D

The search continues....

I might be able to help you out. I just came back from traveling around Australia for a year and I was lucky enough to have a 70-200 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 on my EOS 3 camera. Needless to say I used the 24-70 almost 70% more then the longer lens. The major reason was the weather. The rain seemed to follow me around so the light was never there to use the longer lens. Even though both lenses you are considering have the same f-stop you will have to have a faster shutter speed (or more light) to keep your images sharp on the 70-200 lens.

Cheers and happy travels

Red Bull

I say go for the 17-40. I've heard nothing but good things, and it's my next lens I'm getting.

Sam

cwphotos wrote:

So I borrowed a 17-40L from a member of my local photoclub so that I could see if it is what I wanted for the 2006 shootout. I like it a lot...though the lens hood is friggin huge !!!! But now my question. Given the 1.6x crop on the rebel xt does this lens show me more than my 18-55mm EFS kit lens? If it doesnt why then would I want to get this? And also would I then not be better off getting the 10-22mm EFS lens for more wide angleness?

Thanks all.

I don't see a tripod lised on your gear list. You will want one of those.

As for the choice between a 17-40 or 70-200, there isn't any choice for the 2006 shootout.

The 17-40L, no contest.

Sam

cwphotos

Wow thanks all. I think the 17-40 may be it for me. So if I get this should I sell the kit then?

Jeffro

cwphotos wrote:

Wow thanks all. I think the 17-40 may be it for me. So if I get this should I sell the kit then?

I have the 17-40L F4 and the 70-200L F2.8 and both are top notch! Worth the price. Once you get the 17-40 you will NEVER use the kit lens again. I only keep mine around so my daughter can learn with it on my Digital Rebel, while I shoot with my 20D.

But.....since you have the kit lens, and a 28-105, you may want to consider the 70-200L F4 if it is a once in a life time trip. You will be able to go wide with the ones you have, and reach out with the 70-200. Each would compliment the other.....the only problem then, what if you want to shoot macro, or need that 400L ? AHHHHH!

But seriously you can't go wrong with either lens, good luck with your choice.

For what it's worth, I'd go long, and cover the entire range. BTJM:D

Jamoke

Jeffro wrote:

But seriously you can't go wrong with either lens, good luck with your choice.

For what it's worth, I'd go long, and cover the entire range. BTJM:D

Totally Agree - I'd try to cover the entire range. For me I like sitting in the background, and photographing from a distance, so I killed for my 70-200 f2.8L IS USM. But I still don't have a wide angle for my canons. The funny part is that I shoot some architecture, and would benifit from the wider angles. My next lens will be wider, but I went for the 70-200 first.

But if you haven't ever felt that you needed to be closer, or couldn't get closer, then obviously go wider. and vice versa. can't go wrong with the 17-40L but my next choice will be the 16-35 or 10-22. probably the later, because I have the other ranges covered.

Cover your ranges with the best glass you can get.

DanielB

go for the 17-40 if you feel like you want to try out the 70-200 also, i'm sure the Dgrinners that show up would be more than happy to let you tinker with some of their gear... and if you get in good with them, share their lenses .


just like Steven the 17-40 is also the next lens on my list... right after a decent tripod.

Ric Grupe

The 17-40L is a fine lens to be sure.

BUT...

...I had it along with my 17-85 IS and rarely used it anymore so I sold it.

The extra range and the "IS" did it for me. I have never regretted my decision.

jimf

cwphotos wrote:

Wow thanks all. I think the 17-40 may be it for me. So if I get this should I sell the kit then?

I bought the 17-40 because I wanted wide(r) and didn't like the look of the kit lens. Would rather have had the 2.8 but that might have gotten me divorced. Since I almost never shoot wide indoors the f/4 wasn't much of a limitation.

I don't regret it at all, that has turned into my travel lens. Given the cropping factor of the 300D it shows very little distortion. I like it: