| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2007 08:57:48 AM · #1 |
I am considering replacing my Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di with a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. I just want to check a couple of assumptions.
I assume that the 17-40 will let me shoot closer to a subject than would the 28-75. Sometimes I want to shoot portraits in small spaces that force me to be very close to the subject (like 5-6 feet). At those times I generally remove my 50mm or 85mm prime and use the Tamron. I am assuming that the 17-40 will do a better job in such situations. DOFMaster tells me that the “near limit” is shorter for the 17-40, but I am not fully convinced that these calculations tell the whole story. I would also like to be able to get closer to my subjects so that that I can take full-face shots with less cropping.
I also assume that the wider angle of the 17-40 will make it a slightly better choice for traditional landscape photography.
I think I am willing to give up my speed and a bit of reach for a wider angle.
What say you all?
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:26:17 AM · #2 |
Unless your 28-75 has a forcefield, i'm not sure what you mean by the 17-40 will let you shoot closer to the subject...are you referring to the wide angle of view (17mm vs 24) or minumum focus distance?
A wide angle lens will allow more of the scene to be captured, but getting closer and keeping the same framing will cause 'distortion' of the distances. Shooting a person at anything wider than about a 28-35mm will distort their features, especially if they are near the edge of the frame, and will make background objects 'bend'.
[quote]
I would also like to be able to get closer to my subjects so that that I can take full-face shots with less cropping. [/quote]
A wider angle lens will do the OPPOSITE of this - it will include MORE of the scene requiring more cropping. Zoom in or move closer to frame the subject properly and crop less later.
The best focal lengths for portraits are tele lengths, 70mm or longer. This will compress the subject and be more flattering.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 09:36:16 AM · #3 |
The Tamron is a quasi-macro lens (it shoots down to 1:2 reproduction) and, on the long end, a "short telephoto", do it is the better choice both for closeup work and for tight full face portraits.
The 17-40mm will help you when you have to do full-body or full-group shots from a closer working distance than is optimum. And it is for sure a better landscape lens than the 28-75mm, since it is a LOT wider.
But you can always do what I did, and go with the Canon 10-22mm for your wide coverage. Leaves a small gap between 22 and 28, but you can work around that. The Tamron is an exceptionally nice lens, and for me at least the 17-40 is not really wide enough for landscape work a lot of the time. It's an ideal range for FF sensors like the 5D (the 10mm is the equivalent of 16mm on the FF camera).
And the 10-22mm costs less than the 17-40mm, I believe :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2007 11:13:27 AM · #4 |
Thank you very much Chris and Bear. That was exactly the information I was looking for.
|
|
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: 12/29/2025 05:34:51 PM EST.
