L is evil!

[Xinca]

After I get the 70-200/F4 I never use the 28-135 anymore. so I am

think about it must go now. Before I sell it I need buy something else.

 

Again L is evil so I am think about the 17-40/F4 too. Tokia 12-24 is

only for APS so I do not want it. I do not like sigma and I am using

10D so not EFS.

 

It looks like 17-40/F4 is my only choice now.

 

my question is 17-40/F4 or 20/2.8 + 35/2?

 

I know 20/2.8 and 35/2 is not L but they are primer. Plus I can save a

lot money about the filters.

 

I already have 50/1.8. so the question is like:

17-40/F4 VS 20/2.8 + 35/2 + 50/1.8.

[scott_meilicke]

"so the question is like: 17-40/F4 VS 20/2.8 + 35/2 + 50/1.8. "

 

Do you need the low light abilities of the primes?

Are you OK changing lenses vs. the convenience of the zoom?

 

My guess is all would give similar optical results (sharpness, color). I have used/owned/own, respectively, the L, 20, and 50. The L is certainly as good as the 20. From what I have read, the 35 is very good as well.

 

The 50 1.8 is a fine complement to either situation. Because of the narrow depth of field, speed and longer reach, it complements the L zoom nicely.

[pto189]

Yes, L is evil and additive.<p>

I agree with Scott.<p>

17-40/4 is not equal to 20/2.8 + 35/2 + 50/1.8 but 17-40/4 + 50/1.8 = 20/2.8 + 35/2 where you'll use 20 and 35 50/50 but 17-40 and 50 90/10. I prefer 17-40 and 50.<p>

You won't regret if you buy the 17-40 especially you've already bought 50 and 70-200/4. This combination is the best in quality, weight, and price.

[johnb]

Alex,<br>

I don't know if the 17-40L is your only choice or if it is evil, but it is a good lens.<br>

<br>

I love primes but I love convience, the 17-40L combines both to my eyes. Here is a shot I took with the 17-40L and a 10D hand held.<br>

<br>

<center>Fillmore Glen State Park<br><A href="http://photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com/parks/fillmore_glen/fillmore_glen4.htm" title="Click to Open Photo Spec page Photo copyright ? 2005 John Bauer" target="_blank"><img src="http://photography.firstchurchofthestreets.com/parks/fillmore_glen/fillmore_glen4.jpg" alt="Click to see Photo Specs Photo copyright ? 2005 John Bauer" style="WIDTH: 333px; HEIGHT: 500px"><br>

EF 17-40L f/4<br>

click for specs

</A></center>

[robert_nancarrow]

Alex, if you must have L then get the 17-40 but I wanted to point out that I believe the Tokina 12-24 can be used on full-frame and 1.3 crop cameras, the only problem is it will vignette on those, I've read that on full-frame the vignetting begins at around 16mm so it may be a viable option for you if you wish to have a wider angle for your 10D now and then not have to "dispose" of the lens later. Although not an L lens, it has very good build and picture quality is also very good. Bob.

[robert_rietz]

I took the 17-40/F4L and 50/1.8 on a recent trip to Italy. The 17-40 lived on my drebel unless I needed more light. Pix were great; I'm trying to get them up on a website. Three of them are in my porfolio here.

L is certainly addictive, but once the money is gone, the joy of great photos remains a long time.

Bob

[quicksilver1]

I Agree. buy 17-40.

 

I have the same combination. Started with 28-105 initially and then got 50 f1.8. Then 17-40 F4L. Sold 28-105 and bought 70-200 f4.

 

I have 17-40 for 1.5 years now and never regretted my decision. Infact, the combo of 17-40, 50mm and 70-200 is The Best !

[Xinca]

hmm. I kind of make the decision: I will get 17-40/F4 and sell 28-135.

hopefully the 17-40/F4 can give me same exciting as the 70-200/F4.

Thanks for all you guys.

[PuppyDigs]

I have the EF 17-40 4L USM and, although excellent in terms of build and optics, is

extremely boring. A frickin' yawn. I hardly use it and regret buying it. I actually far prefer

the range and IS of the EF 28-135 IS USM.

[wolver]

Don't over look the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 DI, great lens, good optics, highly rated.

[charles_lipton]

L=Evil= 17-40mm f/4

[digitmstr]

hence the new slogan: "The Canon 'L' series, Evil's end"

[thomas_munch]

My 35/2 hasn't seen much use since (recently) getting the 17-40/4 for my 10D. I like using a 28mm lens on full-frame, and the 17-40 on the 10D gives me this view, and more. I admit that I do prefer the size of the 35/2 and I will keep it for the speed when needed...but, I think 17-40 is a *great* lens and I'm having a lot of fun with it.

 

--tom

[yakim_peled1]

Agree. My usual reply is something like:

 

I must warn you about those primes and L lenses. I wholeheartedly advise you NOT buy any of them. If you buy one, you will never be happy with anything else. That will cause you enormous financial problems (and possibly, like in my case, also marital ones as well) as you'll always be in a quest to get more. I think that Canon primes and L lenses should all bear a note saying: "Beware! Addictive substance!".

 

Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

 

 

P.S. On a 1.6X DSLR I think that 20mm is not wide enough so I'd go for the 17-40/4 if I had a 10D.

[KenPapai]

On my 10D I use the 16-35L about 60% of the time, the 24-70L about 38%, and the 70-200 2.8L about 2%. They are fantastic lenses worth the money and they increase the enjoyment of taking photos three-fold. They all use the same 77mm diameter filters, except it is recommended you go low profile for the filters on the 16-35.

<p>

-Ken<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<i> If you buy one, you will never be happy with anything else.</i><p>

 

This is the equipment freak approach. To a photographer, any lens used to take that right photo is something to be happy with. I've been shooting with Canon lenses for a year and a half, and almost all my published work is with non-L lenses. I just use lenses that take photos and I look for happiness in the photos.