Joining the 'L' Family
- Thread starter hanqiang1011
- Start date
- Status
U won't regret it.
Actually I have both lenses.......to my eyes, it's about the same but the f/2.8 is useful
I regreted the 17-40 and got the 16-35MII instead. Now looking at 14mm F2.8. Why regret? F4 don't cut it at alot of situation, and barrel distortion is very bad, and significant light fall off at the edge....(If possible save up and get the 16-35MII straight away, don't waste money on 17-40.)
Last edited:
StrifeYun
Senior Member
sad to say... i'm thinking of this too .... will change on my nxt trip .... damm have to sell and buy another CPL ksm slim filter (B+&) haiz ........
I have to disagree. Being a wide angle at f/4 u can get gd enough shots without flash at low shutter speeds. Barrel distortion wise, i like it especially on my 5D but there's minimal light fall off on the edges, In some cases don't have at all.
Headshotzx
Senior Member
Hurr? You like the barrel distortion?
Try freezing a motion of a dance in a concert. 1 stop is also of diff. Barrel distortion is bad especially when you take pictures of buildings of photos will straight lines.
Anyway these are some reviews made by http://www.the-digital-picture.com
"The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens resists flare very well. Colors and contrast are very good. Expect some CA in the full frame corners below 24mm. Distortion ranges from moderately strong barrel distortion at 17mm to mild pincushion at 40mm with 24mm being the approximate point of no distortion. As usual, closer distances resulted in stronger distortion and significantly less distortion will be noticeable on 1.6x FOVCF bodies. You will likely notice the barrel distortion in the full-frame 17mm ISO 12233 resolution chart sample crops. "
"One advantage the 16-35 II has over the 17-40 is better vignetting performance - though full frame body users will see the most significant difference. The 17-40 meters exposures 1/3 stop darker than the 16-35 II. Even with both lenses wide open (f/2.8 vs. f.4), the 16-35 II shows less light fall-off than the 17-40. "
Try it in yr FF DSLR.
Some people has strange likings....:bsmilie:
Precisely what i meant. I liked it with the distortion when i take buildings too. By the way, i don't take concerts.
It ain't strange. I like it the way it gives on my 5D.
Others might.....:nono: not all people are like you. It is better to show the disadvantages of a product to someone and make them realise what they are in for. Then to let them realised the fault themself when money is spend.
Yes i agree but the aperture and price difference speaks for itself. Though overall the 17-40 definitely is not as gd as the 16-35 II, but as long as it works for u why not?
Headshotzx
Senior Member
Yes i agree but the aperture and price difference speaks for itself. Though overall the 17-40 definitely is not as gd as the 16-35 II, but as long as it works for u why not?
Yeah. But I believe as current/past users of the lens, we should strive to educate any potential buyers about the pros and cons of his / her future purchase if we can. The 17-40L is a tool that works for some, and doesn't work for others.
An 85mm f/1.2 might be great for portrait photographers, but to the common family-snapshot dslr user, it'll be overkill and money not put to good use.
Last edited:
eosdigital
New Member
Yes, just like some who preferred 85mm for portraits, i like the 50mm view instead, regardless of 1.6x or FF.
Some may not even need a DSLR, a simple PnS will do.
ray_stinger
Senior Member
Actually I prefer the bokeh rendered by the 135L compared to the 85L after trying both. But I must say that 85L is such a sweet lens to own...pure indulgence! But since my wallet has a finite depth, I decided to go with the 135L instead.
Headshotzx
Senior Member
Agree on both points. 50mm and 85mm are great focal lengths on 1.6crop and ff.
I also agree that to many people, a simple PnS will do. But the 1KD is so cheap, getting into the Canon dslr realm is probably a lot cheaper now.
Haha who knows, in future it'll be a lot cheaper until it reaches within the sub $500 for an entry-level body.
- Status
Similar threads
