Reading mode: Light Dark

Lenses... 17-40/4 and 70-200/4 & 20d

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohanP
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
J

JohanP

Guest
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
 
I have them both and a 20D.

My reasoning for getting those lenses were:

1) First and foremost: excellent image quality (I'm happy to confirm this).

2) Relatively (indeed, this is so relative...) light weight and moderate size if compared to the f2.8 equivalents

3) With modern cameras you can dial up the ISO quite comfortably in case you run into a situation where the f4 maximum aperture doesn't seem to cut it. The 20D really excels in this regard. This was true already with the 10D but even more so with the 20D. IMHO, of course.

However, in case you're really serious about shooting indoor sports or such events, there's no substitute for wide aperture lenses. I shoot mostly nature and landscapes (I use a tripod and have the luxury of stopping down the aperture as needed) and so far the f4 versions have suited my purposes very well.

Of course, there are some other exceptions to this, such as astrophotography (and even there the full aperture is not always required) etc, but for general shooting I'd say those two are very fine lenses.

Wider apertures offer shallower depth of field in case that is required (shallow DOF is often required for intance in portraits, where you'd typically use a short tele), but the 70-400 f4L is not too shabby in this regard either.

Maybe you could try out various options in a store and make up you mind after that?

Just my random thoughts, I hope you end up with lenses that suit your requirements the most.

Earthlight
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Earthlight 100%. I'd also add that both lenses are of great build quality (aside from the excellent optics) and very quick/quiet at focusing relative to non-L glass.

Just look on eBay any time to see what good prices both these fetch in good condition, though once you have them you won't want to let them go.

As an aside, I use a Crumpler Ben's Pizza XL which holds 20D, 17-40L, 70-200/4, 50mm F1.8, spare battery, CF cards and a circular polariser. It's a neat outfit which I'm very happy with.

Stuart
Earthlight said:
I have them both and a 20D.
Click to expand...
 
I would recommend both lenses. However, here's some points to consider:

-- Since I do mostly nature/landscape, I thought the f/4 would be OK. However, you always use your camera for other things, so I would recommend consdering additional lenses as well, at least at some point. I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as well as a 50 f/1.4 prime. I would recommend both of these in order to give you lower aperture. Personally, I underestimated how big of a difference there is between f/4 and f/2.8 (and , WOW!, f/1.4).

-- The 70-200 f/4L I received had backfocus problems at 70 and wasn't as sharp as I hoped at 200. Two people mentioned the exact same problem over at Fred Miranda's web site. I returned the 70-200 to Canon and they fixed it (total turn around time 2 weeks). I haven't done any testing yet, but it is definitely much improved. Even with the problem I had, I would recommend the lens. I like the fact that it's fairly light and I do most of my shooting with a tripod. It also has good color and I like the Bokeh, very nice for close-up portrait shots. However, f/2.8 as well as IS would be an important consideration for some photography (again, don't underestimate the difference between f/4 and f/2.8).

I haven't had the 17-40 long enough to post any good examples. The 70-200 pics I have were all taken near 200 before the lens was fixed, so these won't be good to review.

Good luck!
 
I don't own the 70-200 f4 or have any pics using that lens, but I have used that lens, tried it, and loved the size and weight, plus it seemed to take great pics..

I have the 17-40 f4 and have used it all the time.. here's a pic i recently took on a vacation

http://www.pbase.com/cpr1954/image/41113155

craig
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
--
some of my shots here
http://www.pbase.com/cpr1954/root
 
Yes, the lenses are quite solid, they certainly are not lacking in build quality. Retail value is also high. Cameras may come and go (these days), but quality optics are a much better investment in this sense.

I also have a 15mm Sigma (I came across one in mint condition and simply couldn't resist - it's great for many subjects) and long for that superb 100 f2.8 macro.

By the way, which polariser did you get (I'm assuming it's for the 17-40). I've been eyeballing the Hoya shmc circular polariser. It's rather expensive, though the quality should make up for it.

Earthlight
 
Hi

thank you all for your response! I wanted to confirm that these lenses are a good choice and it seems to be...

Best regards
cpr1954 said:
I have the 17-40 f4 and have used it all the time.. here's a pic i
recently took on a vacation

http://www.pbase.com/cpr1954/image/41113155

craig
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
--
some of my shots here
http://www.pbase.com/cpr1954/root
Click to expand...
 
I've read good things about the SIGMA 70-200/2.8 EX. Faster than the Canon f/4 but less expensive than the Canon f/2.8. I've never used them, but that's what I've read. It's worth considering.
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
 
Here's some with the 70-200 (I stamped them with the wrong year, they were actually taken Saturday)

6073.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6073.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6260.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6260.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6010.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6010.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6132.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6132.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6084.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6084.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6185.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6185.jpg[/img] [/URL]

6074.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/6074.jpg[/img] [/URL]

5933.jpg
'] http://www.gulfimagesphoto.com/txsh031905/5933.jpg[/img] [/URL]
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
 
They're both great lenses, but the problem you're going to have is the F4.0 maximum aperature when light is low. The telephoto especially requires really bright sunlight if you wish to hand hold the camera at a reasonably low ISO speed. The secondary issue is the gap between 40mm and 70mm, which many here fill with a 50mm prime.
JohanP said:
Hi

Are they a good choice along with 20d? Could someone post sample
photos using these lenses?

Thanks!

regards
Click to expand...
--
----------------
Robert A
Canon 20D
 
Impressed with your dog picture!!!! I've also got a Golden Retriever and I have taken an almost identic one of him getting out of the Nahuel Huapi lake in southern Argentina.
 
That's what I ordered - lenses should be here tomorrow. After reading this forum for a while I'm a little woried though - I see lots of posts about misfocusing, misaligned optics, very high percentage of 'bad' copies etc - are Canon L lenses really that bad ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top