andrewgy8 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I thinking about getting the 17-40L, but at f/4, do you find it to be fast enough for photojournalistic events? Has canon said anything about a faster wide angle zoom lens being released? Thanks Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 The 17-40 4L USM is a wonderful landscape and outdoor lens. Probably too slow for a photojournalist, but if you don't mind using ISO 1600 you can make up for it. "Has canon said anything about a faster wide angle zoom lens being released?" Yeah, last year, and it's a jim-dandy: EF 16-35 2.8L USM II. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 There already is one. Canon EF 16-35 F2.8 L $1,400. Depending on your Camera a better option might be the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS L. But it will not work on Full Frame Cameras like 5D, only crop bodies like 40D, XTi exct. I would think you'd want the extra stop of F2.8 zoom, but I'm not a photojurnalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 It's fine for outside, but inside w/out flash, I go for the 50/1.8 or the 28-70/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Crop of FF? I use the 17-40mm f/4 on a FF body, mostly for landscape-ish stuff, where it is a great lens. It is not so wonderful shot wide open - you can use it this way, but it certainly isn't at its best. If you are on crop, seriously think about the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens - it has pretty much anything you would want for this sort of shooting in the technical sense: f/2.8, IS, slightly larger focal length range, fine IQ. If you are on FF, the story could be different. Obviously the 16-35mm f/2.8 has a great reputation for the type of stuff you describe, especially if you'll need to shoot it wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_myers Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 There's also a now discontinued 17-35/2.8L. It was the only ultrawide zoom back in 2001. Late that year Canon split the category into the two lenses now offered... the 17-40/4L and the 16-35/2.8L. The 17-35/2.8 is a little smaller/lighter than the current 16-35, but even used it's more expensive than the 17-40. If you are using 20D, 30D or 40D, or any of the digital Rebels/Kiss/xxxD, you have another alternative: The 17-55/2.8 IS. As an EF-S lens, it can only be used on those particular camera bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Everyone always suggests the 17-55 2.8. I am sure its a great lens, but $1000 for an EF-S lens? I would hope for L build quality for $1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I have a small question to 17-40 users. Isn't 17-40 not wide enough for landscapes etc. on a 1,6x camera? I'm wondering which one to take 17-40 or 10-22. I didn't have a chance to test them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Michael, IMHO you can use a zoom as a great landscape lens, so it'll depend on what you need to capture at the moment. If you equate width with landscape, then I'd definitely choose the 10-22mm. It's probably not weather-sealed as well as the "L" glass but I bet it'll hang right in there in terms of image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 "I have a small question to 17-40 users. Isn't 17-40 not wide enough for landscapes etc. on a 1,6x camera? I'm wondering which one to take 17-40 or 10-22. I didn't have a chance to test them yet." I found it perfect for sweeping landscapes on my 10D: the wide end has the aprox. angle of view of a 28mm lens on FF. To me that's the ultimate wide angle of view: natural perspective and easy to "see" and compose. On the other hand, the 17-40 is too wide at 17mm to be useful on my 5D. Everything is so dad burn small. 24mm is as wide as I can stand to go on my 5D. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_wilkie Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 ISO 1600?<br><br> I always thought that a 17-40 f/4 at ISO 200 would give you the equivalent speed of a lens at f/2.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryantan Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Not too many photojournalism assignments come with the luxury of being able to shoot at ISO 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_smith6 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Puppy Face, Beau Hooker - thanks. I think I'll buy 17-40. Focal lengths of 10-22 sound nice but I guess I would use it only for a few shots on the beach I always wanted to take (you know... with the camera low, near sand and with this nice perspective capturing the beach and the ocean). 17-40 would become my "standard lens" and that would be great because it produces really good quality pictures (contrast, colors). Just if that was 15-xx, then I wouldn't really wonder so much about it. So I think I'll rather buy 17-40, but first I'll go to a shop and check both. If that really was perfect for landscapes for you then that's what I wanted to know. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowcatcher Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 In my opinion you can't go wide enough and 17mm is not wide enough for me on my 5D (I have just bought a 14mm prime); on my old 300D I always shot at 10mm on my 10-22mm (16mm equivalent). We are all different I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I was a news photographer for seven years(to me a photojournalist is one who writes as well as photographs which I did sometimes). Almost any lens is good enough as a lot of quality is lost even on the best newsprint. The requirements for me were a lens had to be long enough for sports and distant(perps) head shots: or, wide enough to capture a mob or a group. F4 worked for meon most occasions. In really bad light I used a 50 1.8. I did a lot of low light sports. Nothing darker than a high school end zone where I had to use flash even with f 2.8 and 1.8 and TMax 3200. Editors don't care as long as you bring home a usable picture. I used some pretty inferior lenses when I started. My best lens was a 70-200 2.8 which is now twelve years old and still sharp. I have a 17-40 on a crop sensor. I love the pictures it makes. Example below. I do not like extreme wide angle because of the distortion. It doesn't look right on my large prints.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DickArnold Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 If only I could spell porpoise. Photojournalist, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Regarding the "is 17mm wide enough on crop" question, this is really a matter of personal opinion and style. It is impossible to give a definitive yes/no answer, and you should be suspicious of any such answers. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowcatcher Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 I would like to withdraw my dumb comment, for some stupid reason I was replying in regard to landscapes and not photojournalistic terms. Many apologies for being a buffoon as I have no experience of this type of photography. Sorry, Kev 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