efs 17-85 or 17-40L
- Thread starter Just Ray
- Start date
- Status
madmacs => If you're particular about composition, some shots from some angles just cannot be helped. Only high ISO or IS to help.
To the thread starter - Both lenses are not fantastic lenses as per say, but if you shoot in lower light conditions more often, I'd think the 17-85 is better. You WILL get more keepers , definitely. F4 is just not fast enough.
however if you just shoot outdoors, might as well get the 17-40f4L. You'll get slightly sharper images which would make most photographers who pixel peep happier. Given the choice though, there are quite alot of other better 3rd party lenses out there which cost less, is faster (f2.8) and sharper than the 17-40f4l.
Of course, the 17-40 f4l has got USM to make up for it's slightly smaller maximum aperture and slightly softer images. This swings the boat around for many people.
Not to mention though, that the ability to boast that you have an L lens comes along with it. However that interest is better served if you were to get a white lens instead.
people will SEE, don't need you to tell.. hahaha...
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It looks like there's significant distortion. I've not seen the 16-35 or 17-35 on FF against this lens, but my gut feeling is that they are be better. That said, I think you should limit your words to 17-40 is not bad for full frame. I must say 1st though, I've not touched a FF camera with wide angle lenses on. From what I see though, I'm not impressed with the 17-40. I thought many lenses were shot down for their distortion?Snoweagle said:Correct. Here's a pic i took using the 17-40mm f/4L USM at 17mm. Pic was taken with my EOS 30 and scanned onto digital format from the photo lab. Conclusion....this lens is excellent for FF cams.
To the thread starter - Both lenses are not fantastic lenses as per say, but if you shoot in lower light conditions more often, I'd think the 17-85 is better. You WILL get more keepers , definitely. F4 is just not fast enough.
however if you just shoot outdoors, might as well get the 17-40f4L. You'll get slightly sharper images which would make most photographers who pixel peep happier. Given the choice though, there are quite alot of other better 3rd party lenses out there which cost less, is faster (f2.8) and sharper than the 17-40f4l.
Of course, the 17-40 f4l has got USM to make up for it's slightly smaller maximum aperture and slightly softer images. This swings the boat around for many people.
Not to mention though, that the ability to boast that you have an L lens comes along with it. However that interest is better served if you were to get a white lens instead.
people will SEE, don't need you to tell.. hahaha...unseen said:madmacs => If you're particular about composition, some shots from some angles just cannot be helped. Only high ISO or IS to help.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It looks like there's significant distortion. I've not seen the 16-35 or 17-35 on FF against this lens, but my gut feeling is that they are be better. That said, I think you should limit your words to 17-40 is not bad for full frame. I must say 1st though, I've not touched a FF camera with wide angle lenses on. From what I see though, I'm not impressed with the 17-40. I thought many lenses were shot down for their distortion?
To the thread starter - Both lenses are not fantastic lenses as per say, but if you shoot in lower light conditions more often, I'd think the 17-85 is better. You WILL get more keepers , definitely. F4 is just not fast enough.
however if you just shoot outdoors, might as well get the 17-40f4L. You'll get slightly sharper images which would make most photographers who pixel peep happier. Given the choice though, there are quite alot of other better 3rd party lenses out there which cost less, is faster (f2.8) and sharper than the 17-40f4l.
Of course, the 17-40 f4l has got USM to make up for it's slightly smaller maximum aperture and slightly softer images. This swings the boat around for many people.
Not to mention though, that the ability to boast that you have an L lens comes along with it. However that interest is better served if you were to get a white lens instead.
Duh...of cos a 2.8 lens is better. Correct, super-wide angle lenses have significant distortion due to more details cramped in. IMO the 17-40 is gd enough, of cos dun say about the 16-35 which is better. The 17-40 performs well in low-light is AF is reasonable swift and fast. If a 17-85 is used it'll become a 27.2-136 which isn't so fantastic for wide-angles.
There're many perople out there who're very happy with their 17-40 and i agree with them too. If everyone can SEE like u do, then what's the point of discussion? *tsk*
JediForce4ever
Senior Member
not always a f2.8 lens is better...the 17-40 has been proven to be sharper than the 17-35.Snoweagle said:
Not all wide angle lenses show significant distortion.Its more about the way you place your subjects that makes the natural distortion stand out.
JediForce4ever
Senior Member
ok...Snoweagle said:
unseen said:madmacs => If you're particular about composition, some shots from some angles just cannot be helped. Only high ISO or IS to help.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It looks like there's significant distortion. I've not seen the 16-35 or 17-35 on FF against this lens, but my gut feeling is that they are be better. That said, I think you should limit your words to 17-40 is not bad for full frame. I must say 1st though, I've not touched a FF camera with wide angle lenses on. From what I see though, I'm not impressed with the 17-40. I thought many lenses were shot down for their distortion?
To the thread starter - Both lenses are not fantastic lenses as per say, but if you shoot in lower light conditions more often, I'd think the 17-85 is better. You WILL get more keepers , definitely. F4 is just not fast enough.
however if you just shoot outdoors, might as well get the 17-40f4L. You'll get slightly sharper images which would make most photographers who pixel peep happier. Given the choice though, there are quite alot of other better 3rd party lenses out there which cost less, is faster (f2.8) and sharper than the 17-40f4l.
Of course, the 17-40 f4l has got USM to make up for it's slightly smaller maximum aperture and slightly softer images. This swings the boat around for many people.
Not to mention though, that the ability to boast that you have an L lens comes along with it. However that interest is better served if you were to get a white lens instead.
I am not expert, but I thought all wide-angle shots tend to have a bigger foreground & smaller background?
If so, at the point at the nearest should look bigger & the further part of the wheel look smaller......unless you shot the wheel flat-on directly at centre......at such a wide-angel & proximity, the wheel definitely look distorted or tilted...
so is it tilt or distortion? unless use tilt-lense to see the difference?
Snoweagle said:
Why would a 2.8 lens handle distortion better naturally? Is that a law of physics somewhere? I dunno about you, but i was talking simply about the distortion, NOTHING else.
distortion due to more details cramped in? :bigeyes: we're not talking about a fish eye ya. :think: If there's distortion, then there's distortion. No 2 ways about it.
and I dun understand... so 17-40 becomes a 27.2-64 and that makes it fantastic for wide-angles? :bigeyes:
New theory. :thumbsup:
rokieto =>
ok ok.. I wasn't talking about the wheel.. maybe it's tilt. maybe the car doors were curved in the 1st place. maybe the building "doorway" was built sagging down. Maybe the building top was built curved. Think you were mislead by the statement
My bad, I should have pointed out and corrected such blatent mistakes. I'll do it now.Snoweagle said:
Snoweagle => Its not due to distortion, it's due to perspective. There's a big difference between the two. Pick up any basics to photography guide, they'll explain it to you.
- Status
Similar threads
