| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2006 05:20:20 PM · #1 |
Is it worth the $600+ to upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens to the 17-40 4L? My 17-40 4L arrived today, so I thought I'd post a comparison between the two lenses in case anyone else is going through that dilema.
The improvement in image quality (color, contrast, sharpness, CA) is definitely worth it to me, not to mention the huge improvement in build quality, weather resistance, and focusing. Whether it's worth it to you I don't know, but I hope this comparison will help. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 05:33:08 PM · #2 |
You didn't get that lens, did you?
Oh man, you have no idea what you've done.
It's L glass you know. Looks to be your first too.
You shouldn't have, really shoudn't have.
Now you're gonna be broke and unhappy except for those moments, rare moments, when you get a new L lens.
But the high is short lived.
You'll want another one.
Then a bigger one.
A white one.
Sorry to see you start down that path man. But then you'll ignore this post, as, well, you have that L high right now.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 05:42:16 PM · #3 |
Amazing what a difference a piece of glass (albeit, expensive, cool, classy, built-to-extreme-quality-standards L piece of glass) can make.
Just amazing. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 06:38:16 PM · #4 |
Prof fate has it in one! you have now caught LGF (L glass Fever) there is no cure for it. If you catch it really bad you'll end up not selling the old cam when you upgrade and, even though you realise L series glass doesn't make you a better fotog you will want (even need)more of it to satisfy your desire.
welcome to the slippery slope they call badass ;)
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 06:41:53 PM · #5 |
| i second that. i just got my 17-40mm, awesome. it's my third L glass. my credit card is hurting. |
|
|
|
05/02/2006 07:11:15 PM · #6 |
I've avoided it so far...but I love Tamron SP glass.
I got the Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX instead of the canon 17-40 f4. Tamron has a 17-50 2.8 SP coming out late this month for $450ish...I may move to it.
I would like the canon 24-105 F4 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS...just under $3,000 for the pair.
That's why I have Tamron glass...
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 11:15:05 PM · #7 |
17-40L..oh man I have been drooling over the idea of this one?
is this a crazy idea..I WAS planning on buying a wide angle later this month..like the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24..but the more I think about it the more I am starting to think about the 17-40..I could leave it on the camera, it would be great for street and landscape shots..and I still ahve the Tamron 28-75 for f2.8 and portraits etc.
I overthink things because it will be awhile before I can get anything else...
is the overlap crazy?
does it render the Tamron useless?
am i going crazy-yes..I am driving myself nuts.. |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 12:49:05 AM · #8 |
bucket, great question. I also have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and am wondering if I'm still gonna need it. I'm thinking with the 50/1.8 and 100/2.0 (both are sharper & faster than the Tamron), I won't be missing the extra 40-75mm too much. I'll let you know if it gets any use from me. Does anyone else have both of those? Do you ever use the Tamron?
Prof_Fate is right on. Only 12 hours in the 'red ring club' and I already have my eye on the 200mm 2.8L. Is there any cure for this disease? |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 12:25:22 PM · #9 |
| anyone with any info on the 17-40L vs wider angle...in combo with the Tamron..see above..appreciate any thoughts.. |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 02:05:50 PM · #10 |
| I know for sure 28mm on a crop sensor isn't wide enough for most skating, but on the other hand 55mm on the kit lens isn't really long enough to fill the frame with anything from a reasonable distance, and 40 is even wider. I think you'd find uses for the Tamron even with the 17-40. |
|
|
|
05/03/2006 03:28:34 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by postoakinversion:
bucket, great question. I also have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and am wondering if I'm still gonna need it. I'm thinking with the 50/1.8 and 100/2.0 (both are sharper & faster than the Tamron), I won't be missing the extra 40-75mm too much. I'll let you know if it gets any use from me. Does anyone else have both of those? Do you ever use the Tamron?
Prof_Fate is right on. Only 12 hours in the 'red ring club' and I already have my eye on the 200mm 2.8L. Is there any cure for this disease? |
Postoak; think 2.8 IS...feed the addiction, man. Welcome to the dark side! :o>
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 04:10:47 PM · #12 |
I do have the Tamron 28-75 and had initially satisfied the d-lsr wide-angle desire by buying the 18-55mm for $50 on ebay and modifying it to work on my 10D at the time.
About a year later, I was looking for a better wide lens and happened upon an auction a going-out of business wedding photographer posted. It was a lot that included the Canon 17-40 (which was what I was looking for) along with some other very nice lenses for super cheap. After selling some of the other lenses, I had enough money to buy and try the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 f/4.
Perhaps I didn't get the sharpest 17-40 lens, but I wasn't impressed. All of the other lenses were at least as good if not better. So I sold it. To make a long story shorter, I ended up keeping the Tokina 12-24 because it eliminated the overlap and it proved to be an excellent lens in my non-professional tests in terms of color, sharpness, and contrast. Getting that extra wideness is very fun to play with and has come in very useful. The Sigma probably would have been my second choice as it was also very sharp, and great color, but a lot of overlap with my excellent 28-75.
I'm not knocking L-glass in general. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and one of the other lenses in that lot was the 70-200 f/4 which was outstanding. I was glad to have found that batch of lenses that I bought for $700, and sold them all individually for a $900+ profit. That's how I got the money to start my LGF (bought the 70-200), but there are some very good third-party lenses out there too at very attractive prices, so try to keep your composure! (I agree that you may be a lost cause already since it looks like you got a really good copy of the 17-40!)
Oh yah, I almost forgot my caveat. My main quandry was if and when I plan to upgrade to a full-frame slr, the Tokina and Sigma are out the door since they are made for the APS sensor size.
Message edited by author 2006-05-03 16:12:55. |
|
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: 09/24/2025 11:01:31 PM EDT.
