| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2009 07:28:20 PM · #1 |
| I have a Canon 40D, and I'm looking for a new lense. Have about $800 to spend and I was wondering weather to get the EF 17-40mm f4L or would I be better off getting the EFs 10-22mm f3.5. I would realling like to own my first "L" lense. Am I crazy for putting these two in the same boat. Looking for a portrait, group lense. Thanks for the help |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:29:47 PM · #2 |
| On the 40D the 17-40 would be closer to what you want. The 10-22 is pretty wide for portraits. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:31:41 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Concept76:
I have a Canon 40D, and I'm looking for a new lense. Have about $800 to spend and I was wondering weather to get the EF 17-40mm f4L or would I be better off getting the EFs 10-22mm f3.5. I would realling like to own my first "L" lense. Am I crazy for putting these two in the same boat. Looking for a portrait, group lense. Thanks for the help |
I love my 10-22mm, but wouldn't recommend it as a group portrait lens - it will distort quite substantially. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:32:00 PM · #4 |
I agree with  scarbrd, you are prob better off with the 17-40 F4L, I have that same body and both lenses. Both are awesome but I love my 17-40 just a wee bit more :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:32:15 PM · #5 |
| 10-22 is not an L. Wouldn't use it for portraits either, unless its a very large group in a very small room. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:38:39 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
10-22 is not an L. Wouldn't use it for portraits either, unless its a very large group in a very small room. |
You're right about the portrait part, and it's true it's not an "L" either: but the only reason it isn't an "L" is because Canon won't put that designation on EF-S lenses. Optically, it's of L quality.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2009 07:43:15 PM · #7 |
just to throw a spanner in you *may* want to consider the 17-55 IS f/2.8 ... imho a better lens than the 17-40 f/4 as the optical quality is the same or better in the tests I read, has the extra f stop which will be useful for portraits and the IS is very useful
eta I was considering the 17-40 as it was an "L" but have had no regrets buying the 17-55 instead
Message edited by author 2009-01-19 19:44:28. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 08:00:08 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
just to throw a spanner in you *may* want to consider the 17-55 IS f/2.8 ... imho a better lens than the 17-40 f/4 as the optical quality is the same or better in the tests I read, has the extra f stop which will be useful for portraits and the IS is very useful
eta I was considering the 17-40 as it was an "L" but have had no regrets buying the 17-55 instead |
Wish I had known that. I have the 17-40 and its my least used lens, even after my fisheye, which isn't always so fishy. For portraits I used my Tamron 28-70 as its 2.8, required where I do most of my portraits - in a dark auditorium. Had I known the 17-55 was 1) 2.8 and 2) optically sound, I would have purchased it instead. Wondering if it existed 3 years ago?
the 17-40L is nice, don't get me wrong - I love the color rendition and the sharpness. Just not a fan of the minimum F stop. I will say it is much better than the Tamron 17-40 or so I had. I wish I could have gotten the 16-35L. For me, its more a landscape lens than a portrait lens.
For portraits, the 50mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8 would be good choices. But, that's just my opinion which doesn't mean much as I hate portrait photography and avoid it except my two required shoots per year. And at those, I use the 100mm and the Tamron. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 08:30:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Had I known the 17-55 was 1) 2.8 and 2) optically sound, I would have purchased it instead. Wondering if it existed 3 years ago? |
No, it's a newer lens. And don't forget it has IS :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2009 08:56:35 PM · #10 |
| the 17-40L on the 40d is great. You wont regret it. |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 08:58:33 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Tez:
the 17-40L on the 40d is great. You wont regret it. |
Yup even if you drown it, just dry it out and forget that it never happened. Its one kick ass lens :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 09:07:40 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Had I known the 17-55 was 1) 2.8 and 2) optically sound, I would have purchased it instead. Wondering if it existed 3 years ago? |
No, it's a newer lens. And don't forget it has IS :-)
R. |
I checked it out. Got great reviews. My only issue is its for 1.6 crop cameras. I can still dream about an $8K camera can't I? ;) |
|
|
|
01/19/2009 09:21:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Had I known the 17-55 was 1) 2.8 and 2) optically sound, I would have purchased it instead. Wondering if it existed 3 years ago? |
No, it's a newer lens. And don't forget it has IS :-)
R. |
I checked it out. Got great reviews. My only issue is its for 1.6 crop cameras. I can still dream about an $8K camera can't I? ;) |
you could always sell it later on or if you know that you will eventually go FF the get the 17-40... |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 05:16:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
10-22 is not an L. Wouldn't use it for portraits either, unless its a very large group in a very small room. |
You're right about the portrait part, and it's true it's not an "L" either: but the only reason it isn't an "L" is because Canon won't put that designation on EF-S lenses. Optically, it's of L quality.
R. |
Hmm... it's a great lens but I wouldn't say it was L quality. Maybe I've just got a not-perfect copy... |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 05:19:36 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
10-22 is not an L. Wouldn't use it for portraits either, unless its a very large group in a very small room. |
You're right about the portrait part, and it's true it's not an "L" either: but the only reason it isn't an "L" is because Canon won't put that designation on EF-S lenses. Optically, it's of L quality.
R. |
Hmm... it's a great lens but I wouldn't say it was L quality. Maybe I've just got a not-perfect copy... |
My 10-22 is pretty close in sharpness quality to my 17-40, even before the drowning :P the only big difference is in the CA where the 10-22 in some instances can have a bit of blue/purple fringing but nothing that cant be easily fixed. |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 05:28:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Had I known the 17-55 was 1) 2.8 and 2) optically sound, I would have purchased it instead. Wondering if it existed 3 years ago? |
No, it's a newer lens. And don't forget it has IS :-)
R. |
I checked it out. Got great reviews. My only issue is its for 1.6 crop cameras. I can still dream about an $8K camera can't I? ;) |
5D Mark II, full frame, 21 MP and ONLY $2600.00 |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 06:24:51 PM · #17 |
Sorry, sorry didn't mean to imply that the 10-22mm is a "L" lense, I know it isn't. I was trying to put forth that I wanted to get my first "L" lense. To see if I can get people to push me to it. Being that the 17-40mm f4L is the cheapest lense in the "Luxury" line up, and that I have $800 burning a hole in my pocket. Something is not letting me buy it in my conscious. What is it? Can any one tell me. And it's not my wife, she knows nothing about the extra money in my pocket.;-)
Message edited by author 2009-01-20 18:28:30. |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 06:51:40 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
5D Mark II, full frame, 21 MP and ONLY $2600.00 |
But the 5D is slow. I don't care about the MP, I want a fast full frame camera.
As for buying the 17-40, maybe you really don't want it. You have nothing in your profile so its impossible to see what you most photograph. You are light on the long end - maybe a 70-200L f4? Or if you photograph sports, anything fast will be of help. You seem to want to do landscapes - go with the 17-40L or the 10-22. For portraits, try the 17-55 IS as recommended. |
|
|
|
01/20/2009 07:06:09 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
5D Mark II, full frame, 21 MP and ONLY $2600.00 |
But the 5D is slow. I don't care about the MP, I want a fast full frame camera.
As for buying the 17-40, maybe you really don't want it. You have nothing in your profile so its impossible to see what you most photograph. You are light on the long end - maybe a 70-200L f4? Or if you photograph sports, anything fast will be of help. You seem to want to do landscapes - go with the 17-40L or the 10-22. For portraits, try the 17-55 IS as recommended. |
He stated in the OP "Looking for a portrait, group lense."
I have successfuly shot groups with the 10-22 but as stated before, the 17-40 is your better bet. Both are excellent lenses but for portraits and groups the 17-40 kicks arse out of those 2. |
|
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: 07/18/2025 10:32:53 AM EDT.
