17-40 f/4L vs set of primes

[victor_yushenko]

I am trying to choose between:

1.) 17-40 f/4L (about $800)

2.) 20 f/2.8 + 24 f/2.8 + 35 f/2 (400 + 280 + 225 = $905)

 

I am planning to shoot landscapes.

Convenience factor for the zoom is there, but it dos not sound like a

big deal. To get framing right I would have to walk with zoom or

prime(s). I could zoom instead of walking, but that means that

perspective will change and I am no longer shooting an image that I

meant to shoot. Since I am a beginner zoom might be useful to quickly

run through all focal length and see which one will look best.

 

I am curious how much will I loose in image quality (mainly sharpness)

compared to say 24 or 35 prime? I think that at 20 and smaller zoom

with perform very well at least that what I am guessing by looking at

MTFs (apparently Canon USA MTF chart is wrong, so I looked a one at

luminous-landscape).

 

I looked at luminous-landscape review, it's great but not perfect. I

do not think that it is very meaningful to compare 16-35 and 17-40 at

35 f/4. f/4 is a limit for 17-40 thus quality is not optimal (I do not

intend to shoot at f/4, if I was I would only consider primes or

16-35). At f/8 where I would shoot, I can not see a difference in

sharpness. It would be interesting to see a same shot with 35 f/2.

 

I thought about renting 1Ds and making this comparison myself, but at

225$ per day for 1Ds it would be too expensive (compared to the cost

of the lenses).

 

Lastly I have EOS3 and Digital Rebel, but I hope to buy lens(es) that

will last me much longer then any body.

 

Has anyone done any tests like that?

 

Thanks

[brian_potts]

I think if you plan on shooting around f/8, you will be hard pressed to see much of a difference. I would opt for the zoom.

[jim_larson1]

Frankly, if you plan to stop down to F8, why not get a 20-35/3.5-4.5?

 

The main reason to go "L" is for the F4 performance and better build quality. The main reason to get primes is to get F2.8 for under $1000.

 

I have seen one poster on this forum (do a search!) give positive reviews on the 17-40/4L relative to the primes you list. BTW: A few reputable places sell the lens for $699.

 

I faced same choice, except I also shoot people. I went the prime route to save money (and get the F2.8). I shoot the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. I am now considering a third lens in this range.

 

Also, don't forget you can crop images if you can't frame perfectly. I crop all the time to control the framing: about half my "keepers" have an aspect ratio different than the sensor.

[quicksilver1]

First thing First and that is that 17-40 is for 699$ at B&H. So this gives you a 200$ price difference. I was in your shoes not long time ago.

 

I felt like answering your concerns since I got my 17-40 lens. For beginners like us and who are not into pro photography, a zoom feels good, since it adds to the flexibility.

 

For me primes would have served better, but then I thought to myself, if I would be ready to :

1) First judge the shot. Think about the lenses what I have in my bag.

2) Judge the lens which will be best suited for a particular shot( Sometimes difficult for beginners. Time is essence )

3)Change to an appropriate lens.

4) Move a bit forward or backward and then compose the shot.

 

IMO "The above will make a good photographer of myself" is more of a cliche.

 

Technically speaking, if you want to shoot more often at f8 or less, why don't you go for the versatility of a zoom.

 

I have yet to test my lens but for all the reviews I have read, 17-40 sounds like a geat lens. Ofcourse, you are paying more money to get the primes and you will always have to think about changing the lenses for every shot you will take.

 

Remember, at super wide like 20 and till about 28, moving forward or backward will only distort the perspective, you were loking for.

 

All above is my own humble opinion for the choices I made when I went for 17-40.

 

I hope it helps.

 

Happy Shooting.

 

-Raj

[nicolas_burtnyk]

I keep seeing people talk about zooming with your feet and how zooming with the lens changes the perspective.

Both are absolutely incorrect.

You can *only* change the perspective by moving the camera (your feet).

You cannot "zoom" with your feet.

And when you zoom with your lens by changing the focal length, you are simply cropping or expanding the frame (and changing DOF).

Try it... stand still and zoom with the lens. You will see that relative sizes of objects do not change.

 

Cheers!

[jbq]

I'm in the same boat. Just got a 50mm prime, about to get a 10D and a 17-40. I picked the 17-40 over primes because of the 1.6x cropping factor of the 10D/Rebel (I know that 20mm wouldn't be wide enough for me, the 14mm is out of my price range, and I don't want to consider 3rd party lenses when I have Canon equivalents). At f/8 I wouldn't expect to see huge differences in sharpness, although it's very possible that good fast primes would peak before f/8 (I'd imagine that the 35/2 would be best at f/4 to f/5.6, and that the pair of f/1.4 L primes would peak around f/2.8 to f/4).

 

I actually find myself wanting a zoom when shooting landscapes more than in any other situations.

[lu_yin]

Well, for f/8, you can get a really cheap lens (even the 18-55 that comes with your digital rebel) and still get good results.

 

17-40 is really wide and more convenient. And the build qulaity is definitely better.

 

For primes, you really don't need both 20 and 24: they are way too close. 20/35 should be OK. Or get a 15mm fisheye and 35mm even.

 

Also, if you are shooting landscape, the change of perspective between 20/35 is pretty small. The perspective change only becomes significant if you are either really close or really far, such as the difference between 20 and 100 (or 300).

[quicksilver1]

<html>

<body>

 

I shall suggest to checkout these links. My 17-40 Chronicile.

<a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=613459">Victor Yushenko</a>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006PoY">

HERE</a>

and

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006WDA">Here</a>

 

and

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Z9V">HERE</a>

</body>

</html>

[cdnguyen]

I went with the primes 24 f2.8, 35 f2 for my 10D. I bought the 17-35mm f2.8 L and ended up selling it. The zoom is more flare prone than the primes. Also primes are smaller to carry around for me. I heard mixed reports on the 17-40mm L f4. It varies from sample to sample. You might want to check it out before deciding to keep it.

[victor_yushenko]

Thanks. Seems that I probably should go with the zoom. Cheaper (surprising but true), more versatile, covers wider range and quality probably will not suffer much.

 

20-35... looks like a great zoom, but no hood and no lens pouch, not sealed like 17-40. I can afford 17-40, so between these two I would go for 17-40 (but 20-35 does look like a nice lens from MTF charts)

 

Nicolas you are right. I though about it and I guess it's not focal length, but rather a distance difference between object in the foreground and background that defines perspective.

 

Charles, I though about flares, but it seems that I must do everything possible to avoid them anyway otherwise contrast will be messed up (even in prime).

For the difference in image quality for 17-40, I am not sure if it is real or not. I would seem to me that difference would be small between samples and to see it you would need something better then 10D (slide or even better 1Ds might shown a difference). In any case now I am concern enough to test it if I buy it. Thankfully I found this link yesterday:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html

 

 

P.S. By the way for anybody else who is also facing the same question here is couple of interesting links:

http://www.normankoren.com/EOS-10D.html (look for list of lenses and a image made with 17-40 zoom). I think it looks great.

and

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml (although 17-40 is not compared, a 16-35 is, and from other reviews 17-40 should perform same or maybe even better at wider end)

[michael_zhang]

I just got my 17-40 from BH for $699 to replace 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. I had 20mm f/2.8 which is good but I like zoom. You wouldn't regret to go for 17-40, but do you consider the new Sigma 12-24 (not fisheye)?

[victor_yushenko]

Michael, no I do not want Sigma 12-24. I want to make sure my lenses are goin to work and be appropriate when I will be able to afford full frame DSLR. (I also has film EOS3, that I use occasionaly. 17 is already extreme for me for a full frame 35mm. Plus I probably would not go for anything other then Canon (probably would not be much cheaper, and I hate taking chances).

[yakim_peled1]

I had a similar debate but mine was simpler. I was only after the 24/2.8 and 35/2 and I didn't (and - sadly -still don't) have a DSLR. I bought the primes and saved about 250$. The truth is that what I miss is not the zoom convenience but USM.

 

If I had a DSLR I'd buy the 17-40/4 without a second thought. That 3mm in the wide end count for a lot. If I had both film and DSLR I'd probably keep these primes on my Elan and use the others (85/1.8 + 200/2.8) on the DSLR.

 

Summary: Considering the fact that you want 3 focal lengths and have the 300D, I'd advise you to get the zoom.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[stefan www.randlkofer.co]

i have a big bag full of primes, but recently bought the 17-40 as my first zoom lens. what a fantastic lens! it's quite a chunk of glass, but worth any gram. and it being f4 is not such a problem as the focal length allows slower shutter speeds. the AF is amazingly quick and it has full time MF. nothing to complain about. this lens persuaded me that there is life beyond primes.

[bruce johnson]

Different lenses often serve different purposes. You say your intent is to shoot landscapes and will likely shoot stopped down. To me the 17-40 (or even one of the 20-35's) is your best bet. Other than occasional flare you won't be missing anything and you'll gain USM, convenience of not switching lenses and extra wideness which is almost a necessity for the ditigal Rebel.

 

Now if you asked for a wide angle lens for handheld indoor use or street photography, etc. I'd say get the prime(s). You'd need the extra speed and rarely have time to fiddle with the zoom ring anyways; also the smaller lens is much more discrete. That's what I've done, I use the 20-35/f3.5-4.5 (will likely upgrade to 17-40/4.0L someday) for landscapes and a 50/1.8 or (my newly acquired) Hexar AF (fixed 35/2.0 autofocus rangefinder) for portraits, candids and street-shooting. I do the same thing at the long end, prime for sports/portraits/candids, slow zoom for landscapes. Then just carry the necessary lens(es) for the task at hand.

 

This may be a bit more expensive than the either/or proposition, but it's cheaper, lighter and even faster than the fast zooms, yet I'm suprised that I rarely see this kind of setup suggested.