DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 17 vs 18mm... (Canon Q)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/12/2005 02:15:41 PM · #1
Hi-ho folks...

This is a very specific Q.. I'm looking for someone with a rebel or 20D who has the 18-55 kit lens and the 17-40 F/4 L in their bag.

Can you stick your camera on a tripod, and take a photo at 17mm with the 17-40L, and then without moving the camera take one at 18 with the kit lens and upload them..

I'm not so much interested in quality/subject as the actual coverage at wide angle, the figures in the EF lens catalogue make no sense at all...

I'm just trying to convince myself to stump up the $ for an L lens in the next couple of weeks, and thought I'd start at the affordable end of the range!

Cheers, Chris H.
 01/12/2005 02:47:12 PM · #2
the 'affordable' one is the 70-200 f/4L.. but by your question, i'm guessing you're more interested in wide angle shots.
 01/12/2005 02:54:32 PM · #3
On this page there's a comparison between 17mm and 18mm...

//www.pbase.com/ashleycheng/1740_comparison&page=3

though it's a Nikon. If I had a 20D I'd be ponying up for the 10-22, but I like my 17-40 a whole lot. If you're looking to go 1-series body (as I am) in the future, I'd stay away from the expensive EF-S lenses.

Message edited by author 2005-01-12 14:54:54.
 01/12/2005 03:05:32 PM · #4
The reason the figures in the catalog will not seem to make sense is that the 18-55 is a S lens which is meant to be use with the smaller sensors of the Rebel or the 20D the 17-40 is meant to be use with a full 35mm frame. So the 17-40 will seem to have a wider angle by the catalog but it will not be that much wider on the 20D.
 01/12/2005 03:08:26 PM · #5
You might consider getting the Sigma 18-125 instead. I've found it to be very good and sharp, and with very good range and close focus, though a bit noisy when it focuses.

And then take the money you save on that lens, which is "only" $250, and buy the Canon EF-S 10-22 for real wide angle shots. That's a bit expensive, at $799 except on sale.

Some quick samples from the 18-125:


Message edited by author 2005-01-12 15:11:31.
 01/12/2005 03:44:46 PM · #6
Originally posted by scottwilson:
The reason the figures in the catalog will not seem to make sense is that the 18-55 is a S lens which is meant to be use with the smaller sensors of the Rebel or the 20D the 17-40 is meant to be use with a full 35mm frame. So the 17-40 will seem to have a wider angle by the catalog but it will not be that much wider on the 20D.


That's part of it, but taking the 1.6x crop into account it still dosn't make sense.. For that matter comparing the 16-35 to the 17-40 dosn't make sense either, and I've found some obvious typo's in the catalogue I picked up as well (Spring '04 edition).

That's why I'm interested in seeing a direct comparison between those two lenses...

Cheers, Me.
 01/12/2005 03:49:03 PM · #7
Originally posted by brianlh:
the 'affordable' one is the 70-200 f/4L.. but by your question, i'm guessing you're more interested in wide angle shots.


'Ay, you're right there, I've got that one circled in the catalogue as well.. :-). Although, the 70-20 F/2.8 IS L... Hmmmmmm is that the sound of Cash registers ringing in the distance???

I'm more interested in up close and personal photos at this stage.. I've got a 90-300 that is actually pretty good at 90-120 and that covers my telephoto needs for the moment. The 50 F/1.8 covers portraits, but the kit lens is a bit of a disapointment colour and sharpness wise for 'environmental' portraits which is what I want to do more of...

What I 'want' is the 16-35 F/2.8 but it's way too much money for me at the moment.

Cheers, Me.
 01/12/2005 04:16:31 PM · #8
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
If you're looking to go 1-series body (as I am) in the future, I'd stay away from the expensive EF-S lenses.


I intend to shoot some (Shock horror) film with the lens as well, so the same applies.

Not sure if I'll stump up the cash for a 1 series body in the near future, the 20D will keep me happy for a fair while assuming I put some good glass on the front end.

Cheers, Me.
 01/13/2005 06:07:28 AM · #9
If you want good pictures, buy good glass. That is not the only requisite for consistantly good photographs, but by all accounts it is one. These are your tools. If you framed houses for a living would you buy a Wal-mart hammer or an Eastwing? I would rather have one excellent lens then 10 different average ones.
 01/13/2005 06:19:04 AM · #10
I have the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM and this is crisp, but i have a full frame sensor. This may not be wide enough for you.

But a good prime for under $400 is quite a deal.
 01/13/2005 06:33:33 AM · #11
Originally posted by nsbca7:
If you want good pictures, buy good glass. That is not the only requisite for consistantly good photographs, but by all accounts it is one. These are your tools. If you framed houses for a living would you buy a Wal-mart hammer or an Eastwing? I would rather have one excellent lens then 10 different average ones.


'Urro,

I used to shoot with an OM4ti and zuiko glass, so I've got no doubts about the benefit of good glass, what I'm wanting to know is the coverage of this particular bit of good glass compared to the only wide lens I've got at the moment, as the data I can find is pretty much useless... (Cor, that was one sentence..)

I have been looking at primes, but none offer the same value as the 17-40 as I see it. Or at least not for a 1.6x crop camera.

To get a reasonable coverage for what I want to do I'd probably go with the 20/2.8 and the 35/2 which would be $1650 (NZ) worth of lenses... When I can get the 17-40 for $1562 with the convenience of zoom and, according to the reviews, equal quality.

The one stop difference isn't a show stopper for me, particularly not at those focal lengths as long as my nerves hold out.. :-).

Cheers, Chris H.
 01/13/2005 06:47:17 AM · #12
Originally posted by KiwiChris:

I have been looking at primes, but none offer the same value as the 17-40 as I see it. Or at least not for a 1.6x crop camera.

To get a reasonable coverage for what I want to do I'd probably go with the 20/2.8 and the 35/2 which would be $1650 (NZ) worth of lenses... When I can get the 17-40 for $1562 with the convenience of zoom and, according to the reviews, equal quality.

The one stop difference isn't a show stopper for me, particularly not at those focal lengths as long as my nerves hold out.. :-).

Cheers, Chris H.


The only reason I posted that was that you getting advice on lenses such as the Sigma 18-125, which is a lense you may use, you may even like it, but it will never be a lense you will fall in love with. Nothing against Sigma, but that lense is not even some of Sigma's better glass. And the zoom range is far to broad to ever be very efficient.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 07:37:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 07:37:03 AM EDT.