| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2004 02:42:19 PM · #1 |
Hey guys, I'm kind of thinking here.
I can get the 17-40 for around $660, and the 24-70 for a little over $1000. Pretty major difference for a a poor college student such as myself. I wanted to go with the 24-70 then in a get some money together to get the 70-200 2.8 IS thinking I would have that range covered. And then maybe the 15mm fisheye for my ultra wide purposes.
But I kind of need a lens now. I can't afford the 24-70 at this point, but I have enough for the 17-40 and enough left over for books.
So I also have a 50 1.8. Am I going to miss that 41-49, and then 51-69 range at all?
side not : I shoot just about everything. And indoor stuff won't be a problem, because the 50 1.8 I think is all I really need. I also have 550, so I don't think I'll need the 2.8 of the 24-70 that much. But it would be nice to have I suppose.
What should I do? Because the 17-40 would save me $340 now, and then I don't think I would need to bother with the 15mm, so that's another $500-600 in the future.
Anyone have samples with the 17-40?
Thanks. |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 02:58:08 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 02:59:27 PM · #3 |
I have the 17-40 f4 L Lense and it is awsome. I dont have time right now but when i get off of work ill post some picks. You have to remember that there is a 1.6 magnification factor with the lense so its actually more like a 24-56 lense on you camera. I also have the 70-200 f4 L and it also is a great lense but i do wish i had waited and bought the 2.8 version for the extra stop of light would come in handy often. Bottom line is that you will not be disapointed with the 17-40. Kevin
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 03:00:07 PM · #4 |
You can see lots of photos taken with the 17-40 here
17-40 photos |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 03:05:13 PM · #5 |
| do not rule out the Tamron Di series lenses, they're very good and much cheaper. There is a 17-35mm which I own and love. They also make a 28-75mm which I hear is very good, and often used by wedding photogs. Check them out! |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 03:28:58 PM · #6 |
Go with the Canon 17-40 f/4
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 04:02:20 PM · #7 |
I have the 17-40 and I like it. I'm looking forward to the 24-70 though. I shoot its counterpart (70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM). The bokeh and contrast just "feel" better to me in that lens than in the 17-40. Don't get me wrong; the 17-40 is a workhorse, I may just be a little jaded due to my subject matter and the amount of time it spends on the 10D. Here are some samples with the 17-40.
It's a good "L" lens. Other than the speed (4 vs 2.8), the bokeh (which is partially a product of the speed but basically a product of the approximation of the circular outline of the overlapping blades of the iris) and the contrast (which I expect would be slightly better on the 24-70) I think either lens would be a great addition to your bag. Heck, I'm probably just jaded since I've shot two "L"s side-by-side and compared the output. If you weren't sitting with 8x10 prints from the same subject, same outfit, same lighting, same everything you probably wouldn't notice a dime's worth of difference between what they'll produce.
Get the 17-40 and have a blast with it.
Kev
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 04:45:53 PM · #8 |
I have a 17-40/4L and a 70-200/2.8L. To cover the gap in focal lengths, I use a 50/1.4. Still debating whether or not to pick up the 24-70/2.8L because I'm not sure how much use the 17-40 will get after that. A friend suggested I consider the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro as the optical quality is near the overpriced Canon L version and also will only run you about $400.. almost $300 less than the 17-40/4L.
Just something to consider.
Sample photos
Lens review
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 05:25:02 PM · #9 |
It all depends on your kind of shooting. When I was primarily using the D-Rebel with its 1.6x crop factor, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L was my walk-around lens. With the bigger sensor (1.3x Crop factor) on my Mark II my walk-around lens has become the 24-70mm f/2.8L
|
|
|
|
12/30/2004 07:59:49 PM · #10 |
Even though I do not, technically, own the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L, I've used it on numerous occasions. With a 1.6 crop factor, it's a 38.40-112mm. My 'workhorse' (to use Kevin's expression) is the Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4L, with an effective focal length of 27.20-64.00mm.
As far as (true) focal length is concerned, both lenses, roughly, cover my sweet spot, which lies around 35-50mm. Both lenses, to my senses, deliver excellent image quality with very good contrast and sharpness. The bokeh of the 24-70 can be gorgeous, when I want to isolate a subject. The true focal range also accommodates shots like this, especially portraits. Yet, it has served me well as a walk-around lens in the city, when I wanted a moderately inclusive format and perspective with a deeper dof. It's great performer in low light too.
The 17-40mm, however, covers most of needs and fancies, and offers more elbow room at the wide side. I rarely use it at the widest angle, but I love to shoot at 35mm, which, with this lens, is not found at an extreme end of its range. Low light capability, for my applications, is not a critical feature for a lens of this sort.
Obviously, I have made my choice. I prefer the 17-40 as a multi-purpose wide-to-normal zoom, especially when considering the price.
I would consider buying the 24-70 only as a luxury, in addition to the 17-40 or, if I wished to specialize in portrait photography.Instead, I frequently resort to the 70-200mm f/2.8 for portraits and similar shots to achieve a grand bokeh.
Message edited by author 2004-12-30 20:00:30.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 04:11:04 PM · #11 |
Thanks for the replies.
I went ahead and ordered the 17-40. Should be here mid-end of next week. Can't wait! |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 05:04:20 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Skamal:
Thanks for the replies.
I went ahead and ordered the 17-40. Should be here mid-end of next week. Can't wait! |
Congrats! You're going to love it. It's by far my favorite lens right now. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 07:52:27 PM · #13 |
I think you're going to love the lens. I had the same debate myself and went with the 24-70, but my needs are somewhat different. For the very wide end, I will prolly go with all primes, and have started with the 15mm fish, which I love. Going Prime for very wide may be an option for you as well, though it really doesn't save much, if anything.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 05:35:43 AM EDT.
