Just got my 17-40mm L - DPChallenge Forums

05/10/2005 09:56:43 AM · #1

...and all I can say is WOW. This is my first L glass and I am completely impressed with the build quality. It is solid as a rock, my other lenses all feel like fisher-price toys when you pick them up now.

Now I just need to work on the other L lenses on my list.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/10/2005 10:54:18 AM · #2

Ahh, so you're still wanting 24-70 in addition to your new 17-40? I'm still debating this in my mind, I only need one or the other and don't plan on getting both. Congratualtions! I need to go over to a camera store and check out both of these lenses.

05/10/2005 10:58:52 AM · #3

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

Yes, the 24-70 is more of a "standard" zoom lens... especially with the crop factor of the 20D. The 17-40 is a wideangle. So they have different uses, atleast for me.

I was looking at the 16-35mm f/2.8L but couldn't justify the price increase (roughly 2x the 17-40mm f/4L). With it being used primarily for outdoors landscape shots... the f/4 should suffice.

05/10/2005 11:02:32 AM · #4

Just read your other thread, looks like you have a great trip to get used to this lens on! I hope to see some shots when you get back.

05/10/2005 11:04:35 AM · #5

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

Just read your other thread, looks like you have a great trip to get used to this lens on! I hope to see some shots when you get back.

Yea, i'm pretty excited. I wish I could spend more time in Wyoming, will only be there for 4 days. The rest of next week will be in Florida. But either way I should get alot of usage!

05/10/2005 11:13:15 AM · #6

Based on scalvert's recommendation in another thread, I purchased the Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). It is an awesome lens for the price.

The Tamron is very nearly the equal of Canon's 24-70 in terms of image quality, but it's only $370.

It is hard to find right now.

05/10/2005 12:33:47 PM · #7

Originally posted by bbower1956:

The Tamron is very nearly the equal of Canon's 24-70 in terms of image quality, but it's only $370.

When it comes to lenses, I believe you get what you pay for. Why does the Tamron cost over 3 times less?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/10/2005 12:48:24 PM · #8

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

When it comes to lenses, I believe you get what you pay for.

I tend to agree, however this isn't a professional photographers forum and most of us aren't making 20x30 enlargements. Still, I'm yet to buy anything other than canon, but I might in the future.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/10/2005 12:56:14 PM · #9

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

When it comes to lenses, I believe you get what you pay for.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for $70. Like the Tamron 28-75, it's a bargain.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/10/2005 01:01:06 PM · #10

Agreed, but it's also very cheaply made, has no distance scale, has a plastic mount, sounds like a busted chainsaw, and is not sharp at the edges.

But I do agree with you, they are both great for the money.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Plexxoid:
When it comes to lenses, I believe you get what you pay for.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for $70. Like the Tamron 28-75, it's a bargain.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/10/2005 01:13:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by hopper:

Agreed, but it's also very cheaply made, has no distance scale, has a plastic mount, sounds like a busted chainsaw, and is not sharp at the edges.

Well, that was an extreme example- the Tamron doesn't have those flaws. I simply aim for the tools I need to achieve the desired result. I don't mind if a lens makes some slight sound, but a wildlife photographer might. I don't care if it has a distance scale, but someone who uses manual focus exclusively might. I'm primarily interested in high image quality, and if I can get the shot I want, then nothing else matters (certainly not to the viewer).

05/10/2005 01:23:16 PM · #12

I'm sure Mr. Canon is walking around patting himself on the back for creating an affordable digital SLR cuz it has created a situation where newbie photographers think they need to buy L glass in order to make a good photograph, when really all they need to do is buy book and read about proper exposure, camera/lens limitations, and yes - RULES OF COMPOSITION (the much hated term on this site)

:)

ps ... this post isn't pointed at anyone in particular (except maybe myself and my unhealthy need for L glass).

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hopper:
Agreed, but it's also very cheaply made, has no distance scale, has a plastic mount, sounds like a busted chainsaw, and is not sharp at the edges.

Well, that was an extreme example- the Tamron doesn't have those flaws. I simply aim for the tools I need to achieve the desired result. I don't mind if a lens makes some slight sound, but a wildlife photographer might. I don't care if it has a distance scale, but someone who uses manual focus exclusively might. I'm primarily interested in high image quality, and if I can get the shot I want, then nothing else matters (certainly not to the viewer).

05/10/2005 01:24:10 PM · #13

You're right about the 50 1.8. Worth $70. If you added a quieter motor, a distance scale, metal mount, better construction, and wider aperture, I'd say it's worth about $320 now (50 1.4).

As with the Tamron, there's a reason its worth $800 less than the Canon, isn't there? The Canon has has a wider angle, is quieter, focuses faster, built like a friggin' tank, and is top-of-th-line big-kahuna the REAL PROFESSIONAL DEAL lens of choice for many.

You get what you pay for.

05/10/2005 01:54:55 PM · #14

Originally posted by hopper:

People don't "NEED" BMW's, Mercedes, Hummers, Plasma Televisions, Satellite Television, Cable Television, Broadband Internet, etc. But that doesn't stop companies providing those products from making money and people spending money to buy them :)

I will say one of the main reasons that I am going to only purchase L glass is I am thinking longterm. I don't want to have to buy another lense down the road to replace one I already own because I went the cheap route.

05/10/2005 02:03:20 PM · #15

Originally posted by sage:

I will say one of the main reasons that I am going to only purchase L glass is I am thinking longterm. I don't want to have to buy another lense down the road to replace one I already own because I went the cheap route.

excellent point, i agree

DanSig

05/10/2005 03:01:57 PM · #16

I started with the cheap SIGMA combo, the 18-50 DC and 55-200 DC, now I have the "L" fever, I got the 17-40L, 70-200L f2.8 IS, and 50mm f1.4.

I did want the 24-70L but not anymore, now I want the EF-S 17-85 IS for an allround lens, it's not "L" type but good enough for an all purpose lens, made for the 300-350D and 20D so including the cropfactor it's an 28-135 IS lens.

the "L" fever is a dangerous disease, my next medicine for my fever is the 400mm L f2.8 IS, a very expencive medicine.. about $6000.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

05/10/2005 03:16:54 PM · #17

Originally posted by DanSig:

The main reason I am avoiding EF-S lenses now is in case I trade up to a better camera in the future. Purchasing L lenses should be pretty future proof, while the EF-S lenses not so much... for example if I somehow acquired a 1Ds Mark II ... the EF-S would be unusable.

Not that I plan on purchasing one anytime soon, but things get cheaper every year so who knows... maybe in a couple years I will have a camera that isn't EF-S compatible.. chances are the EF L lenses will still be usable and still be quality glass.

ergo

05/10/2005 03:19:54 PM · #18

Originally posted by DanSig:

I hope they're insured :)

bledford

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/10/2005 04:03:02 PM · #19

If for no other reason, I'll buy L-glass simply because the resale value is remarkable...I mean, truly unbelievable. I can't believe what 4 and 5 year old used glass goes for on Ebay.

05/10/2005 04:08:23 PM · #20

Originally posted by bledford:

If for no other reason, I'll buy L-glass simply because the resale value is remarkable...I mean, truly unbelievable. I can't believe what 4 and 5 year old used glass goes for on Ebay.

Which is another reason why i'm only going to be buying L glass from now on. Forgot to mention it earlier, but resale value is certainly a plus.

05/10/2005 05:24:45 PM · #21

I see people saying you get what you pay for. So why not buy the top of the line camera? Because it may not make economic sense for some and I would say that applies to most on this site. So the 50mm 1.8 is not as good as the kit lens?

The reason why third party lenses are cheaper is so they can compete. If another company made a similar lens at the similar price, why not buy the one made by the manufacturer of the camera.

I bet anyone that they take a picture with the 24-70L lens and the same shot with Tamron 28-75, you will be hard pressed to find the difference.
At least not $700 worth.

I have the 70-200 2.8 L so I am not making this up. I know what an L lens photo looks like.

Keep over-spending. Canon loves you for it. I don't think anyone can argue with scalvert's results.

Message edited by author 2005-05-10 17:25:32.

05/11/2005 01:08:05 PM · #22

Originally posted by bbower1956:

The reason why third party lenses are cheaper is so they can compete. If another company made a similar lens at the similar price, why not buy the one made by the manufacturer of the camera.

You get what you pay for. When you pay more for a Canon lens over a sigma or tamron, you're paying for Canon's name (and quite often other attributes). I did not say more expensive lenses have better optics, there is much more stuff to a lens than optics, even if it's less important.

What's a lens without good build? Fragile. What's a lens without USM? Slower and noisy. What's a lens without the red ring? Unprofessional. You get what you pay for.

05/11/2005 02:38:21 PM · #23

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

Originally posted by bbower1956:
The reason why third party lenses are cheaper is so they can compete. If another company made a similar lens at the similar price, why not buy the one made by the manufacturer of the camera.

You get what you pay for. When you pay more for a Canon lens over a sigma or tamron, you're paying for Canon's name (and quite often other attributes). I did not say more expensive lenses have better optics, there is much more stuff to a lens than optics, even if it's less important.

What's a lens without good build? Fragile. What's a lens without USM? Slower and noisy. What's a lens without the red ring? Unprofessional. You get what you pay for.

Right. A red ring is what makes a photograph great! I've been doing the wrong thing! No wonder Sigma started using the red line. With a small lens like this one, USM is hardly a $700 feature. Because it says Canon that makes it the best? Have you used the 18mm-50mmkit lens? Have you used the 50mm 1.8 from Canon? By your logic, you should not use the Canon 50mm 1.8 because it does not have red a red ring. Yet it is one of the highest rated lenses Canon makes and at under $80. I don't think Ansel Adams had any red rings on his lenses. He must have been unprofessional.

As for the build I can break 2 of these for less than the cost of the 24-7L and it has a 6 year warranty. I have the 70mm-200mm f2.8 IS USM. I paid $1800 for it and love it. So this is not just about the money. If the lens sucked I would not be so passionate about it. The Tamron lens is not metal but it is still built well and the image quality. What is sad is the "L" lens fever that makes it so people will not even explorer the possiblity that some could make the same or better lens for cheaper. Its not metal but it is a pound lighter than the Canon lens. Its your money. I can buy this lens and still have enough left over for the 17-40L instead of the 24-70L. I'll have one red ring but 2 excellent lenses.

05/11/2005 02:50:13 PM · #24

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. I didn't say more expensive lenses take better pictures (said this before). I said you get what you pay for. The 50 1.8 is worth $80 for what it is: cheap. That doesn't mean it has bad glass!

I'm sure Ansel Adams used some outstanding glass, thats all the red ring signifies, and I use the term losely.

Also, I started a new thread on this subject, and your opinion on the subject is valuable to me as well as everyone else.