-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
17-40 f/f Question
- Thread starter Canon10D
- Start date
Simon Watkins
Senior Member
Only if can't get the aperture and shutter speed that you need. Better to up ISO only when necessary imo. f4 isn't a slow lens btw.
Simon
See profile for my credit card legacy...
Simon
--
See profile for my credit card legacy...
That's kinda what I was thinking... after I wrote the question. I just need to think about it more. Instead of being frusterated with a bad shutter speed, I need to change the iso..
Thanks
Thanks
Ben Strasser
Senior Member
I don't see any reason why not. Maybe some of the techies will point out some image falloff at the higher ISO but I have not noticed any visually. Now you have effectivly a 17-40 f/2.8. (of course you understand you haven't actually changed the lens at all)
EJE
Leading Member
The 17-40L won't go wider than f4, but for any situation where an aperture of f4 or smaller would be used, there's no difference between this lens or a f2.8 lens (in terms of speed that is). So upping the ISO to 200 should only be doen when needed, i.e. when f4 would would not be wide enough for the desired shutter-speed.
lxcellent
Leading Member
I assume that you already know this, but for others who may be reading this thread and aren't as knowledgable:
The 17-40 at f/4 shot at 200 ISO will never be equivalent to the 16-35 at f/2.8 shot at 100 ISO. While the overall speed of the systems will be the same (i.e. both will be able to stop action in the same way), the image will be significantly different. If you take the same portrait shot at f/4 versus f/2.8, even the beginning photographer will notice the difference in the bokeh of the images. The shot taken at f/2.8 with all other things being equal, will be more aesthetically pleasing for 90% of viewers out there. There are many other factors that figure into bokeh, but it is not worth getting into that in this post.
Since the quality of the bokeh is critical to me, I don't even use zoom lenses for portraiture. I only use a zoom for open shooting under good lighting conditions, and when this is the case, I often care little about bokeh. Therefore, in order to determine if this is a good strategy, we need to know what type of shots you take 75% of the time.
M
Michael Salzlechner
Guest
Well you'd only need that if the shutter speed is too low. Otherwise of course you would use the lowest ISO possible. The DOF will not be affected by ISO so there is no point in using it if it isnt nessecary.
--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging
photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging
photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
thomas molnar
Forum Enthusiast
I am wanting to purchase a 17--40 f4. I will be primarily using it for landscapes with an occasional interior shot. For now, I would be using my 50mm f1.8 for interior shots. How does this sound?
Bob Graham rvg
Senior Member
F4 is not a slow lens. In daylight you're looking at 1/2000 for sunlit objects, down to 1/500 for overcast weather. Maybe in really gloomy, rainy skies you might need 1/125, still completely within the 1/focal rule for handholding a lens. Go ahead and use 200 iso when you need to for indoor or dawn/dusk shooting, even 400 or 800, but don't go away from 100 when your shutter speed is well above 1/focal.
With a wide angle you're generally going to be shooting with a lot more dof, so bokeh is not really going to be a factor. For shots where you want a blurry background, switch to a longer lens.
Bob
With a wide angle you're generally going to be shooting with a lot more dof, so bokeh is not really going to be a factor. For shots where you want a blurry background, switch to a longer lens.
Bob
Jarmo Muukka
Well-known member
I used 50 f/1.4 the whole yesterday, because I wanted light weight and wide aperture. Sometimes it was just too long and sometimes too wide. I would have liked 24-300 f/2.0 and as small and light as 50 mm prime 
I got 17-40 just after I returned from the event. If I had got it a day before, I probably have chosen 50 mm anyway, because its wide aperture. I needed that.
I haven't tested 17-40 yet, because of bad weather and not much free time.
Because you have 50 mm, I think 17-40 is a good choice for wide end.
JMu
I got 17-40 just after I returned from the event. If I had got it a day before, I probably have chosen 50 mm anyway, because its wide aperture. I needed that.
I haven't tested 17-40 yet, because of bad weather and not much free time.
Because you have 50 mm, I think 17-40 is a good choice for wide end.
JMu
Jarmo Muukka
Well-known member
I love bokeh of 300 f/4 IS, but I don't need that with wide angle lens. With wide angle lens, I mostly use small apertures.
JMu
JMu
In the WA range we are talking about, the DOF difference between f/2.8 and f/4 will not be as significant as in a more telephoto range [80mm and beyond]. Personally, I don't think I would use 17-40mm as a portrait lens, and therefore, bokeh you are talking about is not a critical factor for this range. For landscape, I would almost always stop down to get the most DOF and sharpness. For available light, even 2.8 comes short.
17-40 is an excellent lens for groups shots and landscape work, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for anyone who's looking for general/landscape photography.
Solo
17-40 is an excellent lens for groups shots and landscape work, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for anyone who's looking for general/landscape photography.
Solo
lxcellent
Leading Member
Well hold on a second guys...
Most people are purchasing this lens because it offers the normal zoom range that we all got used to when we shot film with a 28-70mm f/2.8. The wider the angle the lens is, the MORE critical it is to have the larger aperature in order to use it for portraiture. Therefore, the faster the lens, the better, in order to more closely match the bokeh effects that one can see when shooting with the venerable 28-70 f/2.8.
Now, the reason I responded with a discussion of bokeh is because I had no idea what the original poster intended to do with the lens. If he was going to use it as a true wide angle lens for landscapes and interesting perspectives (hard to do this on 10D with the 17-40, frankly), then I would certainly tell him to purchase away! If, however, he was going to use it for portraiture, then I would say that the faster the lens, the better. Like I said in my original response, I don't even use "wide angle" with a f/2.8 for portraiture. I think the only option is to use a faster prime lens (35 f/1.4, 24 f/1.4, 28, f/1.8) as my normal lens for portrature when I have to deal with the 1.6 cropping factor.
Most people are purchasing this lens because it offers the normal zoom range that we all got used to when we shot film with a 28-70mm f/2.8. The wider the angle the lens is, the MORE critical it is to have the larger aperature in order to use it for portraiture. Therefore, the faster the lens, the better, in order to more closely match the bokeh effects that one can see when shooting with the venerable 28-70 f/2.8.
Now, the reason I responded with a discussion of bokeh is because I had no idea what the original poster intended to do with the lens. If he was going to use it as a true wide angle lens for landscapes and interesting perspectives (hard to do this on 10D with the 17-40, frankly), then I would certainly tell him to purchase away! If, however, he was going to use it for portraiture, then I would say that the faster the lens, the better. Like I said in my original response, I don't even use "wide angle" with a f/2.8 for portraiture. I think the only option is to use a faster prime lens (35 f/1.4, 24 f/1.4, 28, f/1.8) as my normal lens for portrature when I have to deal with the 1.6 cropping factor.
Kung Pao Panda
Veteran Member
Interesting comment. Is there a way you can show us a couple of images with pleasing bokeh vs. not so pleasing bokeh? I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Thanks.
marianco
Senior Member
When photographying groups of people, F/4 may have too shallow a depth of field and some people won't be in focus.
Thanks again......
Jarmo Muukka
Well-known member
Yesterday I took quite a lot photos with 17-40. So far I'm pleased with the results. It seems that my copy is a good one. It does not need calibration.
I used apertures from f/4 to f/10 and shot close ups (about 30 cm), buildings and people. Building photos are not as sharp as my 24-70 shots from the same subjects (what else to expect). Center area is good, but corners are soft. No news here. f/4 aperture shots inside of the house without a flash was surprisingly good - at least to me. Close ups were a positive surprise too. Auto focus is fast. I noticed some CA in the building shots (tree branches against clouds), but it is not a big problem (aperture was f/8 - f/10).
17-40 f/4L is light compared to 24-70 and at first it feels oddly light, but I got used to it. 17mm on 10D is not wide enough, but it's OK. It is a good lens. It's a worst lens that I own, but I think I use it quite a lot.
JMu
JMu
I used apertures from f/4 to f/10 and shot close ups (about 30 cm), buildings and people. Building photos are not as sharp as my 24-70 shots from the same subjects (what else to expect). Center area is good, but corners are soft. No news here. f/4 aperture shots inside of the house without a flash was surprisingly good - at least to me. Close ups were a positive surprise too. Auto focus is fast. I noticed some CA in the building shots (tree branches against clouds), but it is not a big problem (aperture was f/8 - f/10).
17-40 f/4L is light compared to 24-70 and at first it feels oddly light, but I got used to it. 17mm on 10D is not wide enough, but it's OK. It is a good lens. It's a worst lens that I own, but I think I use it quite a lot.
JMu
--
JMu
Jarmo Muukka
Well-known member
Today I have shot 120 images (so far) with this lens. The corner softness was a DoF issue as the subject that was soft was in out of focus area. Today I noticed that if the corners are in the focus plane, they are sharp.
Also it seems that I have a very good copy since I've got many well focused images. Now it seems that 17-40 is my best focusing lens! And it is sharp! I see facial hair in womens faces!!! My 24-70 does not seem to focus that well even after calibration.
My sister's son showed his toy cars and he touched front element with one of them and mark appeared on lens. I attached UV filter immediately after that. I am using hoods all the time. At home I wiped it clean and checked the mark, but fortunately no damage was done.
If you are in need for wide angle lens, buy 17-40.
Does anyone read this thread anymore?
JMu
Also it seems that I have a very good copy since I've got many well focused images. Now it seems that 17-40 is my best focusing lens! And it is sharp! I see facial hair in womens faces!!! My 24-70 does not seem to focus that well even after calibration.
My sister's son showed his toy cars and he touched front element with one of them and mark appeared on lens. I attached UV filter immediately after that. I am using hoods all the time. At home I wiped it clean and checked the mark, but fortunately no damage was done.
If you are in need for wide angle lens, buy 17-40.
Does anyone read this thread anymore?
JMu
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum