Canon Ef 17-40mm F4 Lens any good for portraits/fashion?

<p>I' a huge fan of my nifty fifty 50mm 1.8 lens and it is my prefered lens for portrait/fashion work. However I'm finding out that in my cropped sensor (I have a 450D) I'm feeling somehow limited. I want to acquire something on the wide angle range for portraiture/fashion work. The 28-70mm 2.8 is a good choice as aperture is quite nice but not that wide angle with my cropped body. I also don't want to stop using the 50mm so really do not need another lens with that range. I'm contemplating buying the L series 17-40mm f4. Nice length at widest angle and reaching just before 50mm. A good complement to my prime. But is this a good lens for portraiture/fashion work, given it's f4 aperture? I'm looking for some advice from you all knowledgeable people and those who actually use this lens for this type of work. <br>

Many thanks for your help!</p>

<p>The 17-40 is a nice lens. Not usually used for portraits/fashion. But if <br />"your" style is to shoot portraist with a wide look, the it may work for you. Generally, portraits are done with a FL of maybe your 50 because on a crop body, its an 80mm lens. Most FF users love the 85 1.2 for portraits. I like it on anything.</p>

<p>But if you have developed a style/tatse for wide portraits, its a good lens. The f4 is the only downfall if you can call that a down fall. Thing is, most use that lens for landscape stuff etc and usually use it at f8....sometimes higher. So f4 to them isnt an issue.</p>

<p>If you want deep blured backgrounds, then f4 isnt the lens. Since you are wanting wide, blurred backgrounds arent what you are looking for anyway. If you dont need the low light of a 2.8 lens, then hey it would work for you. Everyone I know loves that lens, and its very reasonably priced.</p>

<p>Short answer: unless you do rather unusual portraits, this lens is not your best choice.</p>

<p>The 17-40mm would certainly be too wide for "traditional" portrait work on a 35mm sensor camera, and it would only approach a "portrait" focal length (traditionally ca. 70-105mm as it was defined on 35mm cameras) at the 40mm end. The reason the 50mm works so well as a portrait lens is that it is the equivalent of a 80mm lens when put on the 15x22mm sensor cameras like your 450D.</p>

<p> Let's just accept the focal lengths fitting into that traditional range for now; but some people do like to shoot longer for portraits, or shorter. The "standard" is simply the result of long experience in film formats that shows that lenses in this short telephoto equivalent range (different on different formats of course) are most flattering. Shorter focal lengths make for things like unaesthetically large noses, and longer lenses tend to flatten things out a bit too much.</p>

<p>This being said, there are no lenses in the L category that just cover <em>only</em> the "portrait" lengths. Probably the closest would be the 24-105mm IS L lens which has the advantage of covering the range (and some) on both the APS-C cameras like yours and the larger 24x36mm "full frame" cameras. I have it and it's my favorite for full-frame work, but it has the compromises that are characteristic of lenses designed as "walkaround" lenses--it has some barrel distortion, some CA, and other characteristics of the breed. I believe some of our members here do use this as a portrait lens with some satisfaction, and no doubt they will chime in.</p>

<p>In the regular EF line, something like one of the 28-35mm to 80-135mm would do. I don't know what these are like from personal experience, although my daughter likes her 28-90mm. Photozone.de has tests of these on APS-C sensor cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am a heavy user of the 17-40 f4 L lens. I took me a while to get used to it, but now I use it quite alot on weddings.<br>

Is the lens good for portraits? No, not really... Well, really not actually. To fill the frame with a face, you need to get really up close and personal, and that is not really the best way of working. Besides, the wide angle on my 5D distorts immensly (if that is a word). If I want to shoot a face-filling portrait on the 17-40 on the 5D, on 17mm, the model's nose is about half the size of the total face...<br>

But... If you want to do some full length portraits (as fashion can be), and want to include the sky or landscape, and add LOADS of drama, you can use the 17-40, and you will love it...<br>

<img src="http://www.fotografieluna.be/imgs/BB_MG_1191.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I'm a big fan of this lens... for landscape work on full frame cameras. But it certainly isn't going to be ideal for what most people think of when they portraits/fashion. (If you have something quite different than the norm in mind, things could be different.)</p>

<p>If I were trying to cover that particular focal length range for this purpose on a cropped sensor body, I'd look very seriously at the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. While 40mm is short of the typical "portrait" length FL on your camera, 55mm is in that range. The larger aperture might also be useful for narrowing the DOF. (Though a prime or two might do this even better.) The overall IQ, especially in the corners, is going to be better on this lens for the purpose you are thinking of.</p>

<p>If you want to give up the wide angle range for the most part, you could look at the 24-70 or even the 24-105 (though I suspect that the former might be more appropriate for your portrait work.)</p>

<p>It might not be a bad idea at all to look at getting two or three primes instead of the zoom.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

I recently shot a Christmas prom with this lens (on a crop body like you have). There was limited space to set up, so a normal range zoom (which this lens is on a crop sensor) was practical to accomodate different group sizes.

 

Check out this pic for an example: http://www.photo.net/photo/8500855

<p>The 17-40 is not too wide for portraits. It is too wide for headshots. Headshots are a small subset of "portraits." For many years, the vast majority of portraits were done with lenses that are "normal" to "slightly wide." Look at all the well-known photographers who shot with standard Rollei TLRs. Portraits are fine with the 17-40.</p>

<p>It doesn't sound like you are interested in headshots when you mention fashion. Also, it's odd that you say you want to go wider and people here tell you that you shouldn't. If you want to go wider, go wider.</p>

<p>Here's a portrait taken with the 17-40. Not exactly fashion, but a portrait nonetheless.<br>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/fsf2005/images/portrait7.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<em>Man, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</em></p>

<p>Here's a studio-like portrait, same lens.<br>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/keri2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<em>Keri, Copyright 2006 Jeff Spirer</em></p>

<p>Well there you go, the shorter lens will be fine for your portraits. I like the 17-40, I use it regularly.</p>

<p><strong>I'm feeling somehow limited</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

You said the 50mm is limiting and want something wider. Do you mean super wide (10-20 range), and what is the budget? Also, do you want something with a fast aperture like the 50 1.8? I recently picked up the sigma 30mm 1.4 and love it, acts more like a 'normal' lens on a crop body. But if you want really wide, maybe a 10-20 or 11-26 range?</p><div></div>

<p>If it takes a good portait and fits your style any lens will work, I have seen some very good portrait work done with the 16-35 and the 17-40.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>See this guys work with the 16-35 <a href="../photo/7037891">here</a></p>

<p>Thanks for all you answers! They are greatly appreciated. Jeff you are spot on. I do not intend to use such wide lens for headshots. For that I have the wonderful 50 1.8. This lens would be mainly for full body shots like the one attached (taken with my 18-55 kit lens at 23mm). However I would like the capacity of blurry background even at wide shots, therefore the f4 is a concern of mine. I will check some other lenses here recommended. Many thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>If you want shallow depth of field you would probably prefer the 16-35 2.8 or even a wide prime like the 24 1.4 or 28 1.8.</p>

<p>To get shallow DoF with something as wide as 16-35 you would need to get very close to the subject which would cause distortion.<br>

The wide aperture at these angles are very useful if there isn't much light but you won't get blurry backgrounds without the in focus subject being distorted.<br>

On a cropped sensor the 'chances' of blurring your background is more a problem as your frame is filled at greater distance from the subject.</p>

<p>I absolutely LOVE my 17-40 F4L.  I use it for portrait work on my 30D 90% of the time.  I only use my 50 1.8 when I have a low light situation and need a fast lens with no flash available.<br>

However, when I am shooting in the studio I can never get my studio strobes low enough to use a 1.8 aperture.  I shoot at F8 or higher in studio and use lighting fall off to create blur the background. <br>

I.E.  If I am shooting with my 17-40 but I don't want the background sharp.  Set my main strobe to F8  set camera to f8 or above and shutter speed as high as sync capable i.e. 1/250  If I move model say 5 to 6 feet in front of black back drop and block off all ambient light in the room the light will fall off very fast and back drop willl fall into darkness.  The high sync speed is required to kill off ambient light to make things darker.<br>

Can shoot full studio shoot including headshots with 17-40 with minimal distortion on crop sensor camera.   Love it best lens I own.  I also own an 85 1.2 L and 70-200 F2.8 which are both WAY tooo long for shooting in small studio space and I don't want to be 30 feet away from model screaming across the room I like being up close and personal :-).<br>

 <br>

 </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To get shallow DoF with something as wide as 16-35 you would need to get very close to the subject which would cause distortion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not commenting on whether or not this would be a good lens for the purposes being discussed here - you'll each need to figure that out individually - but if the photographer is using a cropped sensor camera 35mm would be ever so slighty longer than "normal" (equivalent to about 56mm on FF), and here the small DOF at very close distance could be possible w/o distortion.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>