images_in_light_north_west Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Would an EF17-40 F4L (27-64) still be considered wide angle after 1.6x crop factor, I am considering the above lens. I have an EF 24- 105 F4L and love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Yes, wide, but not ultra wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icephoto Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Sure, but you answered your own question. Many (but not all) photographers will say that 28mm was the classic wide angle lens (smack dab between 24mm and 35mm). 27mm is awful close plus with the 17-40 you move securely into the "normal" range of lenses at 64mm effective focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Quite so, wide but not fish-eye. The 17-40 is a very nice lens on the 20D, so it's going to sit well on the 30D too. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Consider also the 10-22: picks up almost exactly at the wide limit of your 24-105, is spectactularly wide at 10mm and very decent quality. Just not compatible with full-frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 If you intend to stay with EF-S compatible bodies for the foreseeable future, consider the 10-22. But before buying, try a 17-40 or a 10-22 at the 17mm setting, and see if it's wide enough for you. I bought a 17-40 first, and then a 24-105 later (started with a 10D, now on a 20D). I've yet to need or want wider than 17mm, and I plan to go full frame with the 5D successor, so I haven't been tempted by the 10-22. In fact, I doubt I'll have much use for the 17-40, once I've gone FF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 Really depends on the individual. The standard lens that stays on my 10D is a 14mm and I am really beginning to miss using it on film but will when I have more time. So another alternative for you is the Sigma 12-24 which is also good for full frame and fits perfectly with your 24-105. Since you already have the 24-105 I would have a problem justifying the 17-40 only to really use it at 17-24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_reinders Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I think the 17-40mm f/4 L would be a great standard 'walk around' zoom on a 1.6 crop DSLR. But as was mentioned - it does overlap a lot with your 24-105mm. If you don't shoot a lot in the 17-24mm range (27-39mm effective) I would think that it may be an expensive proposition. Then again I don't know what is in you bank account ;) I just got a 20D, and a week later got a used Tamron 19-35mm f3.5-f4.5 from KEH for $120 USD. I know it cannot compare to the 17-40 f4L, but it got me into that range. I can move up later without a large investment. As a bonus it also works on my Elan 7N ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
images_in_light_north_west Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 All very good input, Thanks, I have decided to pick up the 17-40F4L and when it is not in use on my 30D it will work great on my A2E, my equipment was stolen in Costa Rica so the insurance is flipping the bill to replace a differant set of lenses Thanks again, Ross 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