Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus Lens

[tania_fernandez]

Is this a good lens for all purpose wide angle shooting like

landscapes and street photography or is it better to get a fixed

focal lenght like a 35mm (which is my other choice)?

[tom_burke3]

It's quite a big lens. Not as big (or heavy) as the 24-70 or the 16-35, but noticeably bigger

than the consumer zooms. And a much larger front lens element. So it's not

inconspicuous.

 

There is an argument that would be especially true for street photography that says that a

35mm prime would be the ideal lens. It would be faster, too. But an extreme wide-angle

can also be used to take vivid and memorable street images, so nothing is cast in stone.

 

Really, it's up to you. I suppose you could try the 35mm first - it's cheaper (unless you're

going for the L lens) - and see how you get on with it. Or if you want the convenience of a

zoom, what about my favourite lens, the 24-85? It covers the classic street photography

focal lengths and is quite small and light.

[PuppyDigs]

"It's quite a big lens. Not as big (or heavy) as the 24-70 or the 16-35, but noticeably bigger than the consumer zooms. And a much larger front lens element. So it's not inconspicuous."

 

I guess everything is relative! I use this lens and like it due to it's petite size and light weight! Yes, it's bigger than a wide prime like the EF 24 2.8, but I'd imagine most people on the street wouldn't notice it as long as you didn't use the huge lens shade. Incidentally, the front element is relatively small. However, it has a large surrounding border or space between the element and filter threads.

 

I love this lens for landscapes but it's too slow and short for most street photography.

[jon_austin]

Tania: You didn't state whether you're shooting full- or reduced-frame, so I assume full.

 

Accordingly, I second Tom Burke's recommendation of the 24-85. Wide enough for landscape work and long enough for street photography; still small, lightweight and relatively inexpensive.

 

It's not the sharpest lens in its range, however, so whenever I'm out and about with it, I try to keep a 50mm prime in my pocket for better quality for those special shots.

[tom_burke3]

Jon wrote:

 

"It's not the sharpest lens in its range, however, so whenever I'm out and about with it, I

try to keep a 50mm prime in my pocket for better quality for those special shots."

 

I've actually been very pleased with mine; it seems very sharp and crisp. It certainly seems

sharper than my (early) 28-105. But of course lenses vary individually so maybe I

happened to have a very good 24-85 and not-so-good 28-105; others' experience may

differ.

 

In general I agree with you as regards the 50mm, and I have one with me whenever I take

the camera out. But with the 1.6 fov digitals the 50mm is pretty long, and not really suited

to street photography (tho' it becomes a good portrait lens!). If 50mm and 35mm are the

classic street photography for 35mm cameras, then with 10D/300D cameras it will be

28mm & 24mm. We really need a '32mm' lens! - which of course the zooms can provide.

[awindsor]

I have the 17-40 4L and it is a great lens but maybe slow for street photography though superb for landscapes. If you have a film body then I think this lens is probably too wide for street photography. For a zoom I suggest a non-Canon lens - the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens. I don't own it yet but have seen enough shots to convince me it is superior to the Canon consumer zooms. It is small, light, and 1/3 the price of the Canon 24-70 2.8L (probably about 1/2 the price of the 17-40 4L).

 

The primes are optically all good though build quality and handling varies. The ones without floating elements tend to show distortion when focused at short distances. 35mm and 50mm are considered the classic street photography lenses. I have the 50mm 1.8 lens with me always (it is very cheap! bad handling but very sharp).

[whayne_padden]

I know my 17-40 is sharp for a UWA lens. And I know Isaac Sibson showed it was as good as his 24 f/2.8 prime. I also find it light and reasoanbly small for a walkabout lens and it's not white to attract attention; heck I even think the 70-200 f/4 is a baby.

[jon_austin]

Hi, Tom:

 

Don't get me wrong, I like the 24-85 just fine, and I think mine is a good copy; it just doesn't live up to my 50mm prime or L zooms.

 

I shoot with a 10D, and I also agree that with its 1.6x crop, the 50mm is a little long for street photography. But when the 24-85 suits my purposes, I also carry the 50mm, since it's nearly in the middle of this range, and also considerably sharper and faster.

 

Tania never chimed back in to let us know whether she's shooting film or (non-full-frame) digital; if she told us she's using a 10D or 300D/dRebel, I would advise her to get the 17-40; with its sharpness, great build quality and 27-64mm effective field of view, I think it makes a great landscape/very good street lens. It's what's mounted on my 10D most of the time.

 

I don't agree with Alistair Windsor that the 17-40 is "maybe slow" for street photography IF you're shooting digital, since it's so easy to bump up ISO on the fly. (Alistair: I'm going to have to check out that Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8!)

 

Cheers.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <i>Is this a good lens for all purpose wide angle shooting like landscapes and street photography.... </i> </P>

<P> <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Canon,EF,17-40,f-4L,USM/PRD_144218_3128crx.aspx">Yes</a>. </P>

<P> <i>or is it better to get a fixed focal lenght like a 35mm (which is my other choice)? </i> </P>

<P> "Better" is a subjective term. Better for whom? Better for what? I considered the 17-40/4 but went the prime route. I only wanted 24mm and 35mm so got the 24/2.8 + 35/2 (I shoot film). I got a faster aperture which I value a lot and saved 250$. I don't regret my choice though I miss USM.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[awindsor]

Good point Jon. Bumping up the ISO on a DSLR will let you expose in lower light conditions with only a modest increase in noise (IMHO this and the histogram are the best things about DSLRs) though you cannot use a very wide aperture to give a really narrow DOF to isolate a subject. I have the lens and I love it but I have a film body and don't use it as a walk around len - too wide for my tastes. Whether or not you will miss the two and a bit stops of maximum aperture over the primes is a matter of taste. Check out the Tamron - I certainly am.