I really need help.. hope someone will help me..17-40fL/2.8 or 24-70 FL/2.8
- Thread starter pat123544
- Start date
- Status
If you are using a crop sensor DSLR say the 40D.
1.6x 24mm will become 38.4mm which is not wide enough for indoor photo for large group where spaces are restricted.
I'll say the 17-40L will be a pretty good walk ard Lens.
Else the 17-55 f2.8 IS will make a better choice, only thing is that it's not a L lens.
If you are a fan of L Lens then go for the 17-40L, anyway it's the cheapest of them all.
Hope this helps.
Cheerz,
Shin.
1.6x 24mm will become 38.4mm which is not wide enough for indoor photo for large group where spaces are restricted.
I'll say the 17-40L will be a pretty good walk ard Lens.
Else the 17-55 f2.8 IS will make a better choice, only thing is that it's not a L lens.
If you are a fan of L Lens then go for the 17-40L, anyway it's the cheapest of them all.
Hope this helps.
Cheerz,
Shin.
first things first, the 17-40 is a f/4 lens.
and since you said you have a kit lens, we'll all assume you have a 1.6x crop camera, and with that, a 17mm lens would be a better choice, as 24mm as your widest is restrictive personally.
the 24-70L is really meant for full frame users. that said, with a 1.6x crop camera, you should consider wider lens like 17-40L. and the 17-40L is much cheaper too.
and since you said you have a kit lens, we'll all assume you have a 1.6x crop camera, and with that, a 17mm lens would be a better choice, as 24mm as your widest is restrictive personally.
the 24-70L is really meant for full frame users. that said, with a 1.6x crop camera, you should consider wider lens like 17-40L. and the 17-40L is much cheaper too.
that red L ring is too much of a hype honestly. the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is one of the bestest of it's class. it could easily be of the L grade glass, just that canon doesn't grade crop lenses as L. essentially, the 17-55 has everything to qualify as an L lens. =)
hi,
I have a 17-40L F4, it's a bright and excellent lens for landscape photography. However, this lens tends to sit in my dry cabinet more often than not, due to its weight (relatively heavy) and limited shooting range.
For this reason, I evaluated and bought a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Lens about 2 months ago for my general purpose shooting. I'm very happy with this range (which is not found in canon-series) and the photo quality so far.
My 2 cents worth.
cheers
I have a 17-40L F4, it's a bright and excellent lens for landscape photography. However, this lens tends to sit in my dry cabinet more often than not, due to its weight (relatively heavy) and limited shooting range.
For this reason, I evaluated and bought a Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Lens about 2 months ago for my general purpose shooting. I'm very happy with this range (which is not found in canon-series) and the photo quality so far.
My 2 cents worth.
cheers
What's your budget? If you're a bit tight, I'd recommend Sigma 18-200/OS as a walk around for starters. If you get an L and you find that the range is not enough for the type of shots you are taking, chances are you will get another lens. This means spending more.
If you just want to take wide angle only, why not get the EF-S series?
probably Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 + Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. That should be about the same cost for Canon 24-70L F2.8.
My budget is around $1100-$1200...
Hope someone here will sell me... i will post at the other forum when i get my pay!
I think for your budget you can only look at a second hand EF lens. If not, can consider EF-S lens or Sigma/Tamron sets.
Prices are all listed in the Canon Pricelist. Go have a look.
That should be enough for 17-40L F/4. But be aware that it's F/4 not F/2.8.
24-70L is beyond your budget.
Last week I was also in a similar dilemma as you, as I was considering the 17-40mm f/4L or 17-55mm f/2.8. Eventually, I realised that even in low light conditions, f/2.8 would still need a flash to produce decent shots.
Thus I bought the 17-40. No regrets... You'll see nice colours, save some money and weight.
Thus I bought the 17-40. No regrets... You'll see nice colours, save some money and weight.
why EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II much more expensive then 17-40 f/4L?..
any difference?
f2.8..... and f4....... :bsmilie:
haha.. i know but will the picture quilty makes a different because the price its a really big different after checking out the latest update...
how can so expensive when its only like 4 and 2.8?... no offence..
f/2.8 and f/4 differs by 1 whole stop of light. You want to compare, you can see 70-200 f/2.8 IS vs 70-200 f/4 IS. The size and weight of the lens will tell you the difference between f/2.8 and f/4. :bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
