| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2006 03:36:17 PM · #1 |
Okay Assuming you are an expert with Photoshop...
Would you be disappointed purchasing L series glass?
The lens in conideration is: 17-40mm f4/L
I have the kit lens which is also 17mm and goes up to 55mm.
I also have the 50mm prime at 1.8
So do you think I would find HUGE value in the 17-40 4L?
Or would my money be better spent on say the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro?
I know it all depends on what I think - its subjective.
But I love landscape (mostly nautical and sunsets), macro (bugs for my son) and some portrait but I believe I have that covered with the 50mm. On the other hand I hear superb things about the macro lens.
Thoughts from the pros????.... |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:43:51 PM · #2 |
FWIW, one of our members is selling a like-new 17-40L on this thread for $575.00....
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:45:01 PM · #3 |
i think
it depends a lot for waht you doing, the 17 40l gets sharper from 28 to 40, 17 gets a litle soft, specialy for close obeject,, for landscape pohot is maybe one of the best lens, the L give you quality in body build (solid) that means wheather resistand and longer life.
And of course you dont get aberrations the 18 55 get is soft in the corners while the 17 40 dont
well, if you already have the 18 55, keap it until you need to improve your quality of your shots.
otherwise you should buy something you dont have at all a nice L tele or macro |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:45:14 PM · #4 |
On a 1.6-crop camera the 17-40L is a superb performer. You'll almost certainly see a significant difference from the kit lens in distortion and sharpness. The differnce in sharpness may not be night-and-day when stopped down, but wide open there should be a readily apparent difference.
Your 50/1.8 gives you a good reference point for what your camera can do as far as resolution, when shot at f/4 or smaller aperture. The 17-40 will approach this performance.
The 100 macro is also a fantastic lens, and if you do a lot of macro it's well worthe the investment. It's also a very capable general-purpose short telephoto with gret build and a lot of nice features. If your macro needs are less frequent and yoiu don't see a big need for a general-purpose 100mm prime, then consider gettting extension tubes for the 50/1.8 to do macro. This works very well, at 1/3 the cost of the 100mm Macro. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:46:40 PM · #5 |
| I have a 70-200mmL f4 and I love it it is much better than the cheap sigma I have. I ordered both of the lenses you mentioned today if you aren't making your choice in the next few days I will be able to give you my opinion on those two lenses. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 03:48:02 PM · #6 |
Not a pro, but the 17-40 is probably my favorite and most used lens (and I have a pretty good collection). The 17-40 is worlds better then the 18-55 kit lens and easily worth the upgrade.
The 100mm macro is fantastic too though, and compares with a L lens in quality. There are not many lens available that are as good as this and cost the same or less. It's far more then just a macro lens.
Either would be a great purchase. Which do you think you will use more? If lansdscape is your thing, go with the 17-40.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2006 04:18:29 PM · #7 |
| Those are the only 2 I have and am happy with both of them. I prefer using the 100 it's more versatile. Since you allready have the 18-55 I would definitely go for the 100. |
|
|
|
07/17/2006 05:00:29 PM · #8 |
See THIS thread...
Whether or not you need L glass will be determined by what you are planning to do with your photos.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:10:50 AM · #9 |
Thanks so much for the info. I really love landscape photography and going down to the marina doing macro shots of all things aquatic. The only real choice you leave me with between the two is which to get first.
So now I have another question...
Just how much wider is a 12-24 lens versus the 17-40L?
Ive seen the photos taken. But Im always looking for that cost:benefit ratio: |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:16:55 AM · #10 |
I've got the 10-22 and the 17-40. I know a lot of people love the 10-22 and it is a great lens, but I find it too wide quite often. Most of the times I have used it it's been at the 22mm end. Thus I prefer the 17-40 for landscape. Just my opinion though.
How often do you wish you were wider then your 18-55? If it's fairly often, go with the wide lens. If rarely, get the 17-40.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:19:40 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Acts7:
Thanks so much for the info. I really love landscape photography and going down to the marina doing macro shots of all things aquatic. The only real choice you leave me with between the two is which to get first.
So now I have another question...
Just how much wider is a 12-24 lens versus the 17-40L?
Ive seen the photos taken. But Im always looking for that cost:benefit ratio: |
Well if you do the math (and I think this works), the 12 is around 40% wider. That's a biiiig difference.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:25:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Acts7:
Thanks so much for the info. I really love landscape photography and going down to the marina doing macro shots of all things aquatic. The only real choice you leave me with between the two is which to get first.
So now I have another question...
Just how much wider is a 12-24 lens versus the 17-40L?
Ive seen the photos taken. But Im always looking for that cost:benefit ratio: |
Well if you do the math (and I think this works), the 12 is around 40% wider. That's a biiiig difference. |
I thought going from a 13 to a 12 was a bigger "percentage" jump than from a 14 to a 13, so I'm not sure that simple math works here. Doesn't field of view increase drastically per mm as you get lower?
Not arguing, just confused. :) |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 11:34:04 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Acts7:
Okay Assuming you are an expert with Photoshop... |
If you place a high value on your photoshop skills perhaps you don't need to spend the money to get top quality in your lenses. If you are interested in getting the best possible images without having to do extensive editing, then go for the L glass.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 02:57:57 PM · #14 |
an interesting point.
Im not a photography purist and therefore dont mind altering my images a little - cloning out light poles, adjusting exposure adding lens blur etc. But I do like to capture as close to "life as it is". |
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:13:28 PM · #15 |
I have the 50mm 1.8, the 100mm f2.8 macro and the 16-35mm f 2.8 L so I can probably give a reasonable answer.
The 50 mm is superb for people shots, but on a 350D its nowhere near wide enough for landscape work. Even the 16mm is a little 'narrow' on a 1.6 crop body for landscapes (I have a 10D too).
The 100mm macro is excellent on biggish bugs, but to fill the frame you will need extension tubes too. Sharpness is pretty good, but as usual in macro dof is very thin.
As for the 'L' series the 16-35 is the sharpest lens I have in my bag. I know this is not the 17-40, but is of similar quality.
|
|
|
|
07/18/2006 03:30:24 PM · #16 |
The biggest things I noticed when I replaced my 18-55 kit lens with the 17-40L was improved sharpness of course and a big improvement in color rendition, I guess you would say... the kit lens was bad about adding purple fringe or chromatic aberration to objects outlined against a bare sky, for example, while the L glass rarely does, and even then it's much less severe.
My opinion for the uses you have mentioned is to snag that used 17-40L that was mentioned at the top of the thread (and no, I don't know the seller!).
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 07:50:19. |
|
|
|
07/19/2006 09:55:44 AM · #17 |
Check the photozone.de discussion on that lens. It's very good.
Also worth checking out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8... You get a bit more range, with probably a bit less build quality, but it's likely very close in sharpness and color rendition.
When you get it, run a thorough check to make sure it is a good copy... L series lenses tend to be quite a bit more consistent in their quality than 3rd party or lower end stuff...
I'd recommend this range myself... I'm waiting for the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 to compare though... Sounds like a late September release here.
The 17-40 f/4 is not a bad deal for getting into L quality. |
|
|
|
07/19/2006 10:07:26 AM · #18 |
I think you would be thrilled with an L lens.
I did a little comparison here
24-70 2.8 L VS 28-135 IS USM 3.4-5.6
and the results were quite surprising... and finially I got an answer to why my photos were so out of focus in the corners.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:57:26 PM EDT.
