Reading mode: Light Dark

canon 5d with 17-40

Go to last post
C

chueyyy

Member
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney, AU
Hi

Im sorry if this has been posted before. But i finally upgrade to full frame and i use to love shooting with my 10-22mm. Since i blew my budget with a new 5d is it worth getting the 17-40 or is it worth saving up for the 16-35 or any alternative options? Currently i have the 24-70 which i find slightly limited as i shot alot around at the 10mm on a crop.
Any advice would be much appreciated.

Cheers
Chuey
 
Get the 17-40, you won't regret it. I have this combo and love it. I love the perspective and depth-of-field 17mm gives me on FF. The following is a shot at 17mm:



--
-----
cameras: 5D, 50D, D60, R2K
lenses: 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
24 f/3.5 TSE, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro
http://travelerathome.wordpress.com
 
The 17-40 with FF is very similar to the 10-22 with crop. The only disadvantage I found compared to the 10-22 is that it has more barrel distortion at the widest setting. You can correct this when post-processing, but you end up with a slightly narrower field of view.

I don't have the 16-35, but I think that the main difference compared to the 17-40 is having a wider aperture.
 
Was in the same exact position. I decided to go with the 17-40 because a friend who owned both 16-35 and 17-40 at the same time said that the only thing the 16-35 really had going for it was shooting wide open. Stopped down to 5.6 (which is what some people would do for landscape), the 17-40 was great. My decision was easy because I got a used 17-40 in great condition for around $450 from Craigslist.

Now I'm getting more into primes and wedding photography. I got a 35/2, 50/1.4, and 100/2 for small size. I use the 17-40 when I want to go wider than 35mm. I'm considering a 24/2.8 or 24L, but, not sure if I want to buy one as my next lens (leaning more towards a 50L or 85L).

I could now see how f/2.8 in the 16-35 could be very handy. For maximum zoom flexibility, a lot of wedding photographers seem to recommend 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200/2.8 IS. the 16-35 would go better with the Eg-S manual focus screen I currently love to use. Viewfinder is decidedly dimmer using f/4 glass with the Eg-S.

But, the 16-35 is heavy, a bit more than twice the cost, and doesn't take the usual 77mm diameter filters, which adds even more to the filter cost (maybe makes it too expensive to buy larger filters than 77mm).

So, since you just bought the 5D2 and miss the ultra wide, I suggest looking for a good used copy of the 17-40. You could always sell the 17-40 and get the 16-35 when you feel you need a faster lens for lower light use.
 
In reviewing the lens review website, slrgear.com, the 16-35II at f2.8 is rather poor at the edges and doesn't get really gododdd until f4. For normal landscape shots using a tripod (and I do), the 17-40 holds its own against the 16-35 at $1000 less.
 
Basically, the 17-40 is very good for the price but don't expect sharp edges at wider range, it has outstanding colors and good flare resistance, and it's also very contrasty

The 16-35 mk2 has the main advantage of being faster, the other qualities like sharpness vary from sample to sample, you'll find 17-40 samples better than some 16-35 mk2 samples but generally the 16-35 is a little better at wider angles with better edges.

If you have a limited budget, don't expect super large prints and don't want manual focus specialized lenses the 17-40 is the first choice.
--
Click Click ....
 
People who I show my Iceland 17-40mm landscapes never say anything about unsharp edges. Maybe they would notice them when I show my brick wall pictures.
 
I don't own one but I know a professional shooter who uses a tokina UWA lens on his nikon but the lens is also available for canon.

Could that be an option?
 
digitaldog said:
In reviewing the lens review website, slrgear.com, the 16-35II at f2.8 is rather poor at the edges and doesn't get really gododdd until f4. For normal landscape shots using a tripod (and I do), the 17-40 holds its own against the 16-35 at $1000 less.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If I'm going for DOF on a tripod, the 17-40 works great.

A good friend of mine who owned a 16-35 I, 16-35 II, and a couple of 17-40 copies at the same time (he had a bad case of Craigslist disease), concluded that since he didn't shoot these zooms wide open that much, the 16-35 was a waste and just stayed with the 17-40.

I'm thinking event photography where that extra stop of the f/2.8 might be useful. At that point, I would forgive the wide open corner performance of the 16-35 mk II since tack sharp out to the edges wouldn't be my priority.

Honestly, other than the geek in me wanting to own a 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200/2.8L IS as a matched zoom set, I personally can't see myself buying a 16-35 anytime soon. I got too many primes on my buy list that I'd want to take care of first.

I figure if I really cared about corner sharpness on an ultra wide focal length, I'd probably explore the non-Canon prime options. Fortunately for my budget my current interests don't go in that direction yet. :)
 
This lens often get bashed on this site -

mostly for no good reason at all.

I rate it.
 
buying the 17-40 might give you some spare money to add the samyang 14mm f2.8 lens. Manual, ultrawide, very sharp, lots of fun!
--
Regards,
Gravi
 
I'll 2nd the Samyang. The only issue with getting the Samyang and seeing how sharp it is across the frame, you might not be too happy with the sharpness of your 17-40 any more.
I am seriously thinking of selling my 17-40.

I am finding if I want wide I prefer to use either the Samyang 14mm if I want very wide or my Nikon 20mm f4 AI if I want slightly less wide or want to use a filter.

I have a Tamron 28-75 which performs ok at 28mm, so if I can get hold of a good 24mm, will definitely sell the 17-40L.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdaggar/

 
I do a lot of covered bridge photography. The 17-40 is used on at least 80% of my covered bridge photographs because this is the perfect range for that subject. I use it on a 5DII at f/11-16 and could not be happier. I just sold two 24x36" prints that were from older files on which I used this lens on the original 5D and the detail from corner to corner was unbelievable.

--
Bob Sheldon
Photo Gallery at
http://www.bobsheldon.com
 
Good choice. You won't regret it. If you view a lot of landscape galleries on the web like I do, you will see a lot of astonishing photos taken with this lens.
 
By all means, get the 17-40; I have the 5D and that lens and love the combo. Sweet spot on mine is between f/5.6 - f/8.
 
You could always get the 16-35f2.8L II then sell it if you're not happy then buy the 17-40. Or you could buy the 17-40 and spend the rest of your life wondering if you should have got the 16-35 instead. Your call. Don't think through your pocket, if you can afford the 16-35 II go for it. I've got a superb copy and would not trade it for 2 copies of the 17-40. But hey, that's just me. I also have the Samyang 14f2.8 and the Canon 15f2.8 fisheye and I love all three.
 
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