sriram_muthukumar Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Hi folks, I wanted some expert advice before I bought my next big canon lens. I own aCanon Rebel Xti and the following lenses:1. Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens2. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Prime3. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens I get really good quality pictures using my prime(2) & telephoto(3) lens. Irealized that I end up using my kit lens (more than I would like) for more than80% of my clicks. The image quality is so-so I am currently contemplating getting the "Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L" Is this theperfect substitute for the kit lens? or is there a better one? Thanks in advance !- sriram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_hicks Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Personally I would find the 40mm end too short, so I would go for the 17-55/2.8IS instead. It is an excellent lens by all accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The 17-55/2.8 IS is the best of its kind and if you can afford it, go for it. The decision between the 17-40/4 and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a little more complicated. One has excellent BQ, fast AF, FTM and FF compatibility while the other has longer range and one stop advantage. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.seaton Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I take it you have the old 18-55 (non IS version). The new IS version is reportedly much better and costs about $180, I haven't used either but it might be worth getting opinions on. I don't own, but have used, the 17-40. Its a great lens! Others with more experience can comment further, but it seems like it would be a good replacement for you kit lens, although maybe a little short (but you've got the 50mm) Have you considered the 17-55 f2.8? its a stop faster and has IS but is ~$300 more. I do own this lens and love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriram_muthukumar Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 Thanks a lot folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pturton Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Since you have a 50 f/1.8 to fill any gap between the 17-40L and your 70-300, the 17-40l would be a great lens in this FL range for most needs. Although it is only an f/4 lens, for daytime or indoor flash usage (with external flash) it will probably runs circles around your 18-55 kit lens regarding sharpness, colour and contrast. I just purchased this 17-40L a few days ago and I am really impressed with the image quality it produces. After comparing the few images that I've taken with it compared to those of my 35L, I'm confident that this zoom will be of real use to me for landscape, street and family images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_campbell Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 All the bad comments about the standard 18-55mm kit lens display what Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld called "old thinking". Take a look at the smashing review the new 18-55mm IS (Image Stabilized) replacement got on www.photozone.de. It was considered better than the 17-85mm and equal to the 17-55 in resolution. And it only costs $183 on Amazon! But if you want to spend 4 or 5 times that amount..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo7hs2 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I agonized over this decision a year ago. In the end I went with the 17-40 4L, but that was before the release of the new kit lens. Today, I'd still pick the 17-40 4L if I already owned the older kit lens, but I'd buy the new kit lens if I was just getting started. I love almost everything about my 17-40 4L. The image quality is excellent, and the colors are somewhat better than my kit lens. The ergonomics, AF motor, and build quality are miles ahead of the kit lens, and you can actually manual focus this lens. I found the old kit lens (and they haven't really changed it on the new one) to be horribly awkward to use. My only complaints would be the cost of the 17-40 4L, and the relatively slow aperture, although since I use it for mostly tripod mounted nature photography, I generally don't miss the speed. Do I think a beginner should buy their camera with the 18-55 IS, yes. Do I think someone who has outgrown their 18-55 mkII non-IS should replace it with the 18-55 IS, nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Personally, I would go with the 17-40 f/4L. I don't mind the lack of telephoto range or the f/4, and like its IQ and built. The 17-85 f/4-5.6 has more range but is much inferior overall, not much cheaper. The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably too expensive for you, but it is a good low light option. *remember these 2 lens are EF-S lens, they wouldn't work if you want to upgrade to full frame later. If you are tight on money, the new 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS probably can't go wrong. I heared a lot of great things about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_g10 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 17-40f/4L is a very fine lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriram_muthukumar Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 WOW this forum rocks! Thanks a lot for your inputs. I know it's not immediate .. but I guess I would be moving to a full frame sometime. So I am still leaning towards 17-40 f/4L. Thanks again for your lightning fast replies .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I would find it difficult to imagine being confined to an aperture of f/4 for a 17-xx lens on a 1.6 crop body - although it might be acceptable for full frame. In your shoes, I would be looking at the f/2.8 options for the greater creative choice over depth of field they allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jo7hs2 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Mark U, Is your statement... " would find it difficult to imagine being confined to an aperture of f/4 for a 17-xx lens on a 1.6 crop body - although it might be acceptable for full frame" ...motivated by the higher cost of a f/2.8 lens for full-frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 >>> I know it's not immediate .. but I guess I would be moving to a full frame sometime. So I am still leaning towards 17-40 f/4L. <<< (SM) If this (`be moving to a full frame`) is a criterion to consider the EF17 to 40 over the EF-S17 to 55F2.8IS: Then you MUST consider the EF24 to 70F2.8L. In considering this lens you will need to evaluate (and balance) and then prioritise, these key elements: 1. What you will miss between 17mm and 24mm on your APS-C body. 2. How much of that you miss (for example landscapes) CAN be taken with the 17 to 55 `kit` lens (do not scoff, it works quite adequately for landscapes when used at F8 through to F11) 3. Comparative weight and size of lenses 4. How long before you get a 135 format body 5. What value and advantages F2.8 has over F4. 6. What the advantages are, of having the 40mm to 70mm range at your disposal. 7. How the 17 to 40 mates with your current lens cache, and how the 24 to 70 mates and the differences (like lens changes etc) WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 No. On full frame the use for such a lens is most likely shots of interiors or landscapes, where maximum depth of field (and thus narrow aperture) is a likely requirement - effectively it only gets used for the range 17-24. There may be subjects which might benefit from a wider aperture at this angle of view range, but there are certainly plenty more in the 24-80 range. By translation to a crop camera, I can live without a fast aperture for a 10-~20 range lens, but since at mid range subject distances on a crop camera you need 5/8ths the focal length AND aperture to replicate a full frame shot for framing and DoF, a 17-40 f/4 is equivalent to a 27-64 f/6.3. Ideally I'd want something faster than f/2 for the crop camera to get something approaching equivalent depth of field, so I would also be taking a serious look at lenses like the 24mm f/1.4 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_hall4 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 If you see a full frame in the near future, consider a Canon 24-105 f/4 IS L. I just got one and so far, I am tickled pink. Very nice lens with good range and IS. There is a $100 coupon code through B&H now on www.supercoupon.com . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have the 50 f/1.8, 24-105L and the 17-40L. The 17-40 is on my XTi 80% of the time. Superb lens, sharp, solidly built. I also use it on my film SLR so I can reap the benefits of the ultra-wide end (in 35mm terms). Brilliant glass, I'd have no reservations in recommending it to you as an upgrade to your 18-55 kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I have had the EF 17-40/4L USM since June/06 and love it. Prior to buying the lens, I tested the EF 16-35/2.8L USM. The only benefit the 2.8 has over the 4 is that the 2.8 doesn't hunt for a focus point in low light and low contrast situations. The 4 has less flare and less edge distortion than the 2.8. It is also lighter in weight and is cheaper by $500. I would buy the 4 if I had to do it all over again. Check out w w w. photozone. de for accurate lens reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriram_muthukumar Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Tks a lot guys. Made up my mind to go with Canon EF 17-40 f/4L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now