EF 17-40 F4L & 70-200F4L instead of FD equipment

[andrea_beneforti]

Dear all good morning and thanks in advanced for your replay.

I read very nice word about EF17-40 F4L and 70-200 F4L and I�m going

to take the decision to jump from my actual FD equipment to the new

EF equipment. Actually I have T90 and AE1Program with the following

lens : Tamron 17 SP 3,5 - 28 FDn 2,8 - 50 FDn 1,8 - Tamron 90 SP 2,5 �

Tokina SD ATX 80-200 2,8.

17-40 & 70-200 cover all of my needs in term of lens but I have no

comparison between my actual equipment and the future in terms of

sharp. Is there any body that has experience of this kind of jump?

Really I can expect improvement in terms of sharp and contrast?

 

Thank�s again Andrea

[bill_goldman]

Given 20-25 years of technological progress since the FD system was popular, today's auto-focus and auto-everything cameras are a marvel of engineering.

 

Also, today's EF lenses, with their all-electronic interface are reputed to be optically better than their FD predecessors and you are not likely to be dissapointed, especially since you are anticipating acquiring L lenses. These lenses should prove superior to your FD lenses and far better than your Tokina and Tamron lenses.

 

If I were you, I wouldn't hesitate to take the jump to the EOS system.

[walter_mur]

Andrea,

 

Welcome to the team! I'm also a long dated FD user. I have an A-1 since mid 80's and I've shooting with it all these years. I love my FD system. However, as times change I decided to improve my equipment. My first option was to jump to the superb 1VHS. However, as I'm going to preserve my FD system, I decided I´ll go digital. The 10D is my choosen option and I'm currently deciding which lenses to buy.

 

I know primes have best quality than zooms. However, I like how just a simple touch is able to arrange the photogram composition. So I guess that my alternative will be a reasonable mix of both. Here are some options, most of them given by our friends of photo.net forums:

 

a) The advise for just a 28-135 IS USM (especially for digital, perhaps not the wisest advise for film) is strong and I can say that having all in one is a temptation.

 

b) As you mention in your mail, you have a lot of primes as well as zooms, so you may want to consider two primes (a 24 or 28/2.8 and a 50 -1.4 if you can afford it, but 1.8 will also work- and the popular 70-200L/4 (there is no doubt that this zoom is one of the best choices.

 

c) Two zooms are also an interesting idea: 24-85/3.5,4.5 and 70-200L/4. Full covered range.

 

You see, my friend, there is lot to think about. Maybe having a good combination of primes and a zoom could be wise as a first step.

 

Ok, so you have a lot of homework (just as me). If you can afford it, think about the idea of preserving your FDs (at least one body and a couple of lens) and go digital. You will have the best of two worlds. Thath, at least, is my bet.

 

Let us know your choice. Good luck.

[jim_larson1]

Which body are you putting these nice lenses on?

[ky2]

You do realize that you're giving up speed-- f/4 is pretty slow compared to what you're used to. Just my .02.

[John Crowe]

Your only possible dissapointment could be with the 17-40 if you compare it to your Canon FD 28mm and Canon FD 50mm.

 

The technological advancements in lens design has been towards making them out of lighter materials in order to make smaller and faster motors for quicker autofocussing. The optical quality of Canon lenses has not changed dramatically, if at all. The cheaper Canon zooms can be quite dissappointing. The 70-200 f4 L is said to be one of the sharpest zooms available. I also wonder if you should keep the FD and make the transition directly to digital, with both the lenses you have mentioned. I will not make the leap until film is extinct, but I would hate to see you spend alot of money on a film EOS only to switch to digital in 2 or 3 years. If you choose to go with a film body just get the least expensive body that does what you need it to do. Keep your money for the lenses that will eventually take you into the digital format. Best of luck and keep shooting!

[rob de la selva]

the lens you are contemplating are both good EOS options. re: the advise above suggesting primes rather than the 17-40, a posted a comparison picture of the 24mm prime vs 17-40 a couple of weeka back. I also just shot a comparison with the 20mm prime after bumping into another photo.netter in the woods! I'll try and post that sometime. (I feel the 17-40 was better than this lens also)

Note that I'm comparing on a digital body with 1.6 crop.

And yes, these lenses are both slow (you may want at least one fast prime if you're used to these).

[jim_hennessy]

I just got mine and will be looking at tests slides this afternoon. I used to have

FD equipment, then Nikon, Leica, back to Nikon... For the first time since my

FD gear, I feel that Canon is making lenses that I want. The 17-40L and 70-

200L are the lenses that made me jump back to Canon. I shoot mostly on a

tripod, so I don't care about speed. A standard 50mm may be good to include

when you do need the speed, and the 17-40 is supposed to be softer around

40mm.

[Greg M]

Andrea,

 

I've just decided the same thing, except I've been using a vintage Nikon F2 outfit. I was just able to "play" with the 17-40 mounted to an Elan 7 and compared it to the Nikon N80 with their new 24-85 AFS lens. As soon as I got home I ordered the Elan 7 and the 17-40. It's a super lens- well built, but really light & easy to hold. The weight is good on the Elan 7, too. Later this next week when funds permit I'm getting the 70-200/4L and the EX550 flash.

 

In addition to the optical excellence, the weight is where you'll really appreciate the new stuff. I just came back from a two week trip to British Columbia. Had the F2, with a 24, 35 and 85 lens in addition to flash unit. It's amazing how heavy that stuff is after being hauled around all day!

[jim_hennessy]

Got my slides back. The 17-40 is not bad. My lens--I say that because there is

usually an unknown amount of variance between like lenses--seems to be

more consistant than others I've read about.

 

At 20mm it seems to be at it's best. With little difference between f/8 and f/16.

At 35mm it is a bit softer. But less than exepected. Still, not much difference

between f/8 through f/16.

 

This zoom is comparable to many primes. But not a match with the best. I've

used a Tamron 17 3.5. It beats that lens, no problem at 17mm.

[yakim_peled1]

My personal decision in that range is 24/2.8 + 35/2 + 85/1.8 + 200/2.8. I got the longer ones and expect to buy the shorter two in about a month.

 

Just a thought.

[andrea_beneforti]

Dear All,

thank you very much for your contribute, it as been useful and today (Monday) I have already buy my EOS 30 (should be Elan 7 with eyes focus control ) and the lenses in subject. That allow me to have a good camera with nice lenses and it open me in the future digital system.

I'll inform you about I will feel with it

Thank�s again

You have been great.

Andrea