if u have the intention to upgrade to FF soon (within 1-2 years), i advised u to get 17-40.
Cos if u get 10-22, u can't use it on FF and u got to sell it at a loss (although usually the loss not high)
sinned..jus wanna ask..do u think i should jus sell my 500D and get 5D mk2 rather than buying anymore lenses?
sinned..jus wanna ask..do u think i should jus sell my 500D and get 5D mk2 rather than buying anymore lenses?
If you are used to seeing the bokeh of the 50mm lens at f/1.4, then the 17-40 might not be able to impress you. IMO. Because, I am used to seeing the bokeh at f/1.8, then I used this f/2.8 lens and it didn't really impress. I know DOF isn't everything, and colour and sharpness etc should be considered too, but it's just my opinion.
If you are used to seeing the bokeh of the 50mm lens at f/1.4, then the 17-40 might not be able to impress you. IMO. Because, I am used to seeing the bokeh at f/1.8, then I used this f/2.8 lens and it didn't really impress. I know DOF isn't everything, and colour and sharpness etc should be considered too, but it's just my opinion.
dont understand why you are comparing a 50mm f1.4 to a 17-40 f4.0? :dunno:
i would get a 17-40 f4.0 first before upgrading to a 16-35 f2.8.
test it out first. for all you know it is good enough for your requirements.
I don't see why the 17-40mm f/4 L lens is a bad lens. It's as good as it get for its age, although it is not terribly cheap. But then again, I won't expect a L lens to be so.
17-40 is the cheapest L lens actually haha.