17-40 mm lens and 16-35 mm canon lens

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a 28-105 mm f3.5 - 4 usm lens from canon. What subjects are the 17-40 mm and 16-35 lens useful for ? This is for a 35 mm film slr. <br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Landscapes, architecture or any other subject where you need to have a wide angle of view. Even large groups of people may need wide angle lenses. Both of these lenses are excellent.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>What you also need to ask yourself is: When you are out composing images with your 28-105 how often do you find yourself wishing you could zoom wider than 28mm? After shooting with a 24mm lens for a couple of years I realized more and more that there were compositions, primarily for landscapes/architecture, that I could not create.</p>

<p>If you find yourself in this position the 17-40 is a reasonable start. If you are unsure then a used Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 would be an extremely affordable but effective lens to learn with. </p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>For the record, I just flat out LOVE my 16-35. Sometimes I just go into a "wide angle frenzy" with that lens.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I use the 17-40 for portraits, street shooting, street portraits, and travel. Focal length is about how far you will be from your subjects and how you want your subjects to look in the frame, not about the subjects unless your subjects have specific limitations, like shooting sports from the stands.</p>

[markonestudios]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 22, 2012; 10:14 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use the 17-40 for portraits, street shooting, street portraits, and travel. Focal length is about how far you will be from your subjects and how you want your subjects to look in the frame, not about the subjects unless your subjects have specific limitations, like shooting sports from the stands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wholly agree with Jeff's assessment</p>

 

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>I was thinking of architecture, landscapes. I will rent out the 17-40 and see whether I need the wide focal length . The 20 -35 lens sounds like a good idea too. thanks all</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Big difference in 17mm and 28 mm on a full frame camera. I use both heavily for portrait work I use my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for just about everything else I use my Canon 17-40 F4L. When light gets too low for those I use the 28 1.8 or 50 1.8 and I feel well covered for most things I shoot. The 17-40 F4L is a great lens and works exceptionally well on both my Canon ELAN 7NE and when I am shooting video on the Canon 5D Mark II. <br>

I upgraded once to the Canon 24-105 F4L IS and found the 17-40 to have much less distortion of parallel lines especially horizons which were horribly bowed on 24-105 but are perfectly flat with the 17-40. IMOP the 17-40 F4L is the best L-series lens made based on it it great quality and is the lowest priced L-zoom you can get...</p>