| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2007 11:53:11 PM · #1 |
I am getting more and more into wedding photography, and am looking for a good wide angle. I am currently using a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC. as for landscapes, and such...it does well. just wanting some L glass.
my question is...am i going to miss the faster lens, or will the sharpness help out and overpower my loss...anyone with experience with this lens? i would really appreciate it. I am looking at purchasing it very soon, so any input would be greatly appreciated.
like i said, i'm looking at using it for the occasional landscape, but mainly for a lens for group photography, such as family portraits, wedding family shots, etc.
thanks so much, as always your input is always greatly appreciated
-Jon Rowe
Message edited by author 2007-07-10 00:03:33. |
|
|
|
07/10/2007 12:24:58 AM · #2 |
While the 17-40 F4L is an awesome lens, I would be very careful using at the wider angles for groups of people. Extreme wide angles, even withthe best optics, can be very unflattering to the people on the edges of the frame.
For groups, it is best to shoot in the 28 to 40 range. Even 28 can be unforgiving unless the camera is held perfectly straight up and down. Any tilt at all will show convergence.
I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
07/10/2007 01:36:30 AM · #3 |
The 17-40L will do fine for group shots. You won't experience much, if any, distortion with that lens on your 20D. Jerowe might experience some of that with the 17-40 on his 5D, but that's another story :)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2007 03:25:43 AM · #4 |
Jon, I have the 17-40 for my 20D, and find myself using it more and more. It will work fine for portrait stuff, but you will want to be sure there is plenty of light. The f4 isn't fond of dark spaces.
Good luck, I wouldn't trade mine for the world. (Well maybe the 16-35 2.8...)
|
|
|
|
07/10/2007 05:18:03 AM · #5 |
Hi-ho,
I've used my 17-40 for group shots, and sports team photos with good results on the 20D, and with film. (Nearer the 40mm end on film though!) It's not 'that' wide on a 1.6x camera, although it is approaching silly-wide on a film or full frame camera!
I do find that it's a tiny bit softer than my 24-70 is at 24mm F/4, but it's only slight, and by F/5.6 the difference is not noticeable.
It it prone to a little bit of flare if you get a studio strobe in it's periphery, and the hood doesn't help that much, although I always use it to avoid knocking the front.
It's got good 'L' build quality, and I can vouch for its robustness having dropped mine a couple of times. (Yeah, I'm rough on my gear, I'm over it)
The only down side is that you need to use a good filter on this lens if you're going to keep it on all the time (You do, don't you?). Because of the angle that the light passes through the filter at wide angles for the outer areas of the image it will show up cheap filters very quickly. I'm currently using a B+W slim UV filter, which cost $200 NZ ($120 US). A good polarizer is similar money, if not more, I seem to remember mine was over $300NZ.
Until I got my 24-70 this was almost always mounted on the 10D or 20D... Nice glass, and a good walk-around lens...
(Been looking for a reason to drag out that again!)
Cheers, Me.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2007 06:03:34 AM · #6 |
I love my 17-40...it hardly comes off my camera. I do mostly studio work, and its perfect in a smaller studio like ours, coz I dont have to move back so so so far to get everyone in.
Most of my recent stuff in my portfolio is taken with my 17-40..
 
Few outdoor shots, although not big groups...
 
 |
|
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: 08/29/2025 06:40:31 PM EDT.
