| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2006 01:47:12 PM · #1 |
Can anyone convince me that the 17-40 f/4 is worth the money? In all honesty, for a lens that gets so much hype and praise, I have yet to see any really convincing examples of sharpness, etc.
In the near near future I plan on buying a wide angle zoom. My thoughts go to the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 12-24, Canon 10-22, Tamron 11-20, Canon 17-40... etc. All around the same price range. Yet what I've seen from the 17-40 is just not something that I feel like I couldn't shoot with my kit lens.
So prove me wrong! Or at least give me some insight on the WA zooms.
Thanks,
Lee
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 01:57:18 PM · #2 |
I have the canon 16 - 35 USM, which is about twice the price of the 17 - 40. However, although I am pleased and satisfied with the results I get, I have seen many images form the 17 - 40 which, had I checked it all out before I bought mine, would have convinced me to buy the 17 - 40 instead. OK mine is f2.8 but with landscapes I very seldom shoot larger than 5.6 and 90% of the time it's f22.
I can't point you to any examples but I am sure someone will. |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:55:28 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:56:51 PM · #4 |
I would think for your camera the canon 10-22 would be a better choice
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 02:59:42 PM · #5 |
Lee, I wanted to go wider, and was not impressed with the kit lens that came with my equipment. In retrospect, I would have bought the body only, but what are ya gonna do?
I went with the 17-40 after debating with myself between it and the 10-22, primarily because I want to go full frame in the near future, and the 17-40 was a more logical choice. I would say try playing with several, even boiling it down to a short list and do some weekend rentals to see what you like better.
Dave
|
|
|
|
01/26/2006 03:15:31 PM · #6 |
I have this lens and I have used it a lot with great results.
some examples here
  
 
  |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 04:56:14 PM · #7 |
Thanks.
Is the 10-22 worth the extra moula in comparison to the Tokina 12-24 f/4? |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 05:44:46 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 06:12:00 PM · #9 |
Most of the options for Canon WA are pretty bad from what I've seen. Nearly all of the zooms are soft and poor, particularly at the corners.
The 17-40 is slightly better than most and has the advantage of weathersealing when used properly. |
|
|
|
01/26/2006 06:34:02 PM · #10 |
| Does it make sense to do one of those get-an-adapter-and-get-a-nikon... or does that diminish the purpose to begin with? |
|
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: 08/28/2025 11:25:35 AM EDT.
