Ef 17-40 F4L

[bernstein1234]

Do you really need IS at 55mm? :bsmilie:

I used 55mm at low light conditions, so IS is a must... I managed to get blur free shot at f5.6 with shutter speed 1/4, which I can't get with my previous 18-55 non-IS... ;p

I know some ppl can claim that they can handhold at 1/4, but I can't, that's why IS..

 

[xunjas]

Do you really need IS at 55mm? :bsmilie:

u mean the other guy rite?

 

[Snoweagle]

i rather train for steady hands or use the money for other lenses. =)

Agreed, cos IS isn't everything. I've used different IS lenses before and they're quite impressive for places with lower lighting. Other than that, it's just another feature of a lens.

 

[Snoweagle]

I used 55mm at low light conditions, so IS is a must... I managed to get blur free shot at f5.6 with shutter speed 1/4, which I can't get with my previous 18-55 non-IS... ;p

I know some ppl can claim that they can handhold at 1/4, but I can't, that's why IS..

I've shot a nite pic of a building using my 17-40 at 17mm end, ISO 800 and 1/4 speed and it's still sharp. Maybe it's becos of wide-end bah.

 

[Snoweagle]

haha if that day ever comes, the non-IS lenses would become obsolete

well.. IS does have it's advantages, but also we need to know how to shoot properly if we want to harness the full potentials of IS, and I also agree on the fact that IS does increase the 'keep rate' of your shots and allows you to shoot in certain conditions where the environment completely prohibits tripods..

Possible cos now Canon have a few new lenses all with IS technology. Then pple will be so dependant on IS that i'll be more of getting a pic sharp rather than handholding techniques.

 

[bernstein1234]

Possible cos now Canon have a few new lenses all with IS technology. Then pple will be so dependant on IS that i'll be more of getting a pic sharp rather than handholding techniques.

Ya there might be a chance of over-reliance, but it can be said that IS has opened up a whole new range of possibilities, such as shooting indoor ambient without the use of flash. And this possibility has been opened up to even amateurs such as me, or people who don't have the technique, and only know how to press the shutter button (those passers-by whom you want them to help to take a pic, know what I mean?).

Technology has improved over the years, and we have to look at a whole new range of possibilities which cannot be achieved easily in the past... I know last time is film, manual focusing etc... But now cams are meant for the masses to enjoy shooting, rite? As long as we shoot, get the result, and happy, then that's the joy of photography..

 

[Snoweagle]

Ya there might be a chance of over-reliance, but it can be said that IS has opened up a whole new range of possibilities, such as shooting indoor ambient without the use of flash. And this possibility has been opened up to even amateurs such as me, or people who don't have the technique, and only know how to press the shutter button (those passers-by whom you want them to help to take a pic, know what I mean?).

Technology has improved over the years, and we have to look at a whole new range of possibilities which cannot be achieved easily in the past... I know last time is film, manual focusing etc... But now cams are meant for the masses to enjoy shooting, rite? As long as we shoot, get the result, and happy, then that's the joy of photography..

Yeah...i remembered when i was shooting with film before i changed to digital. Everytime before depressing the shutter button have to really compose and meter correctly. Now with digital it's like take and delete if it doesn't come out rite.

Without IS is also possible to take ambient light without the use of flash especially when u're using a wide lens. Tele ones have to be more careful and i find IS more justifiable for lenses over 200mm as more handshake will also be introduced the longer it is. Wide ones don't need it at all IMO.

 

[xunjas]

Agreed, cos IS isn't everything. I've used different IS lenses before and they're quite impressive for places with lower lighting. Other than that, it's just another feature of a lens.

IS for super telephoto lens is worth the money.. as well as the 24-105mm but for the 70-200mm version, IS is very expensive for me~~

 

[xunjas]

Ya there might be a chance of over-reliance, but it can be said that IS has opened up a whole new range of possibilities, such as shooting indoor ambient without the use of flash. And this possibility has been opened up to even amateurs such as me, or people who don't have the technique, and only know how to press the shutter button (those passers-by whom you want them to help to take a pic, know what I mean?).

Technology has improved over the years, and we have to look at a whole new range of possibilities which cannot be achieved easily in the past... I know last time is film, manual focusing etc... But now cams are meant for the masses to enjoy shooting, rite? As long as we shoot, get the result, and happy, then that's the joy of photography..

dun belittle yourselves as armatuers, u will become better and practice and work with lens without IS =)

 

[Fumiryu]

The 17-40 works very well if you are taking IR pictures, the only observation I have so far is that I find that the 17-40 is not as sharp at corners as compared to the 16-35, this is pretty obvious.

Someone gave me feedback that the 17-40 has noticeable distortion at the corners and the distortion is obvious, not only on full frame camera bodies but even on 1.3x crop factor camera bodies. Can somebody please comment and show pictures if possible? Thank you.

 

[Snoweagle]

IS for super telephoto lens is worth the money.. as well as the 24-105mm but for the 70-200mm version, IS is very expensive for me~~

If 24-105 f/4L have a non-IS version, i'd still get it over the IS one, save more money.

 

[Kit]

Someone gave me feedback that the 17-40 has noticeable distortion at the corners and the distortion is obvious, not only on full frame camera bodies but even on 1.3x crop factor camera bodies. Can somebody please comment and show pictures if possible? Thank you.

Yes, barrel distortion is very bad and is clearly visible even with 1.6 crop.

 

[Kit]

You can see what I meant from this...

 

[xunjas]

If 24-105 f/4L have a non-IS version, i'd still get it over the IS one, save more money.

;p canon haven note and manufacture it~~

 

[Snoweagle]

;p canon haven note and manufacture it~~

I doubt they will.

 

[xunjas]

I doubt they will.

without IS the lens might worth about 800, cheapest canon pro lens~~ ;p

 

[frostyfrostysnowman]

dun belittle yourselves as armatuers, u will become better and practice and work with lens without IS =)

haha well when that time comes.. for now, i think 'amatuers' is a befitting category for pple like me too.

 

[frostyfrostysnowman]

Yes, barrel distortion is very bad and is clearly visible even with 1.6 crop.

haha but i still kinda like the distortion though. :bsmilie:

 

[xunjas]

haha well when that time comes.. for now, i think 'amatuers' is a befitting category for pple like me too.

:nono::nono: SLR users no armatuers liao~~ u r adult liao

 

[flipfreak]

haha but i still kinda like the distortion though. :bsmilie:

fisheye la. alot of distortion. :bsmilie: