Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....  
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4764 times:

Just another lense question, I know that everyone says that the 17-40L is an awesome lense and I don't disagree, I am wondering if the gap between 17-40mm and my 75-300mm will cause me problems. I sort of want to have all the ranges covered, I know in YVR when i went there the guys were talking about all i need is 50mm for side-ons from Avis (locals will know what I am talking about) so the 17-40 would be fine on my 10D. Will I ever run into problems not having 41-69mm? (I am going to be getting the 70-200L IS eventually)

My plan is to have a short, Medium and long range lense configuration... which consists of this:

17-40mmL
70-200mmL IS and the 1.4x converter
100-400mmL

Maybe some prime lenses later on...

I currently own a:
Canon 75-300mm USM III
Sigma 170-500mm

If I buy the 17-40L lense I just don't want to be pissed off down the road cause there is a better lense that will suit my purpose

Thanks in advance,

Grant


Drive it like you stole it!
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4727 times:

I currently have a gap between 40 and 100mm, having the 17-40 and 100-400. For aviation photography it's not that big of a deal, as I use the 100-400 for basically everything . But for all kinds of other stuff it would be nice to have a 28-70 or something in that region. Unfortunately Canon doesn't have an "L" of 40-100. Maybe... one day.  Smile
Eduard


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4723 times:

I have about the same gap in my lens line-up.
17-35mm then it jumps to 70-200mm, I have had several situation where I needed a lens bang in the middle of these.

I have used a friends Canon 28-135mm IS and was impressed by the performance per £ spent.



It's f3.5-5.6 so not the brightest of optics, but with the IS it maybe worth a look.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineJfazzer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 158 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4702 times:

Hi Eduard & Ian, I too have been using the 28-135 IS on my 10D and have been impressed with the results.
As for the 17-40L lens, I hope its enough as I just bought one three days ago.
Haven't used it at an airfield yet but have been impressed with it's performance around the house.
Price-wise it's a winner compared to the 16-35L however you only have F4.0 which is why the 16-35 is over twice the price.
Keep us up to date with what you decide, I would like to know.

In the meantime........ Good luck.


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

If it gives you problems, get a 50mm/1.8 and you're set!

Staffan


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4678 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

feedback I've gotten on the 28-135 is that it is pretty soft at the upper focal lengths, and subject to grain.

I would say you for sure need something in the mid-range.

My line-up loks something like this:

15-30
24-85
70-200
80-400

Lots of overlap, but all lengths covered.


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

I have:

12-24
28-135
100-400

the 28-135 is fine for ramp shots but not so good for action shots.

Luis


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4704 times:

I have the 28-135 and I don't rate it at all - I wish I'd kept the 28-105 I sold to a friend along with a body I was getting shut of. Now I have the 17-40L, 70-200F2.8L and the 100-400L I'm hoping the 28-135 will see minimal use.

Andy


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

It's good to hear different users experiences of using the 28-135.

Andy, what is it about the lens you don't like...? Soft at any particular setting, IS, etc...?

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Ian,

I find it softer than the 28-105 which I thought was an excellent lens, and the AF is hopeless (often hunts before achieving focus and sometimes doesn't achieve focus at widest angle at all - have to zoom in, focus and then zoom out again). The AF has also crapped out totally once, necessitating a trip to Canon for rectification. At that length, I don't need the IS so the extra cost over the 28-105 also isn't justified.

Sadly, I got the 28-135 in a package with the EOS-3 and thought I was being smart selling the 28-105 - one of my worst decisions in terms of equipment!

Andy


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

Cheers Andy,

It doesn't sound like a reliable lens then...  Sad

I think I will save up some money and buy the 24-70L. Or look out for a used 28-70mm.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

I have:

17-40L
28-135IS
100-400L

Overlap yes.. But well covered. I've found little use of the 28-135 of late but then again there are times when you'd really need it and such times may not necessarily be aviation photography. Advise is do get one if able, perhaps used, as you will find it useful. Tried the 28-105, a very good lens too.


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

the new sigma 28-70 f/2.8 is a great lense, I would get that one...

I know its not L glass but that isnt always important...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

Eduard hit the jackpot. I've also got the humble pair that is the 17-40 and 100-400...was freaking out before I got it, but now I hardly bat an eye.

Covering all focal lengths can be overrated. I thought the 60mm (96mm after crop factor) would be an unbearable gap in the standard range, but it really isn't noticeable.

Granted, at this point, I'm shooting just planes and attempting portraiture, so the two lenses fit perfectly. There are definately times when something around 70 would come in handy, but hey, you deal.

It may work for the better. By limiting yourself you push the creative envelope. Don't try to make it so easy for yourself.


Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4544 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Covering all focal lengths can be overrated. I thought the 60mm (96mm after crop factor) would be an unbearable gap in the standard range, but it really isn't noticeable.

LOL.

A Lens in the 25-100 range is going to be the most important lens in any casual shooters bag.

I would also say a 70/80-200 f/2.8 is also a must have lens for the serious photog.



User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

If I didn't cover the 40-100mm gap I'd save a bunch of my on film that's for sure  Smile While different for everyone, I'd be lost without it (45-70 range). If I had to choose only one lens out of all available, it'll be a 28-70/f2.8 (or similar). Of course, the 80-200/f2.8 in my bag is a bonus.

Mike


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4534 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

the 50mm ramp shot is being replaced with the 400mm D Reb approach shot.

User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

That's exactly why I was going apeshit when I was looking at the massive gap. The main reason it irked me so much was that it was the standard range...and it's kinda obvious that it's standard for a reason.

I didn't mean to say the 60mm void isn't noticeable as much as it's just an inconvenience...at most...for me.

Depends what you shoot and how you shoot it. It always does. But, all things considered for aviation photography, you're either really CLOSE or really FAR... Beyond that, whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

17-40 is a great range, and on a digital body it actually becomes one of these standard-range lenses. Get it, see how you fair, and take it from there. I may like it, but Mike and Mr. King may not.


Hey, Royal, did you get my email?

[Edited 2004-11-11 04:41:48]


What the FUTT?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4530 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Nope, but I did get the email from Exitrow where he pointed out that you called me a widebody.

The wide angle lens (17-40) in your example is a good lens for shooting people and such, but I always need a little more length (uh huh) when on vacation and stuff like that. Oh yeah, it also helps out on the ramp.

Here is a shot I took of my daughters on Halloween with the 15-30.



User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Was wondering why I never got a response. Was prettymuch apologizing for being a rejection brat...but I termed it much more appropriately and added a lot of other sentimental boo-hoos, too. I hate you because you're beautiful...let's leave it at that.  Smile


I agree with your point about the extra "uh huh" length. That's one reason these threads can be so destructive...it all really revolves around personal preference. And we know what happens when things get subjective in AvPhotog.

Nice shot of your daughters (one Chloe?).


Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9668 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4525 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

dude you dont need to apologize.

I was just telling all the SEA and YVR spotters today how I was going to kick your ass if I ever meet you Big grin But since you are being nice I take it back.

On the lens deal, my opinion is that a mid-range (28-70, 24-85, 28-135 etc etc) lens is the most important one you can buy when you are learning photography. But thats my opinion.

Yes, that is Chloe on the left.


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4501 times:

I had the 28-135. Found it big and heavy for the range it offered, poor AF and a bit soft. The single mode IS wasn't much use to me.

Replaced it with the 24-85 which is much more of what I would expect from a mid-range walk around lens. Of course the 24-70 L is a fantastic piece of glass, but again it is very large and heavy, so perhaps not always the lens you'd want to use.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineDazultra From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 689 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

I have a 24-85 and its a great lens, quick AF and very sharp throughout considering the price.

Daz.


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Anyone looked at the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF....?
http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/24_70_ex.htm

I've found a used Canon 24-85 for just over £100, which seems a good price.

Ian.




If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

I was going to buy the 28-135 for ramp photography but now I'm so discouraged from what I read here.
Can someone tell me which 28-105 are you talking about? Is this the cheap $150 lens from Canon? If so, is it really better than the 28-135? Maybe SkyMonster can help me.

Thanks.


25 Staffan : I use the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 mkII. Quite happy with what it does for the money spent on it. Staffan
26 Skymonster : 28-105 F3.5/F4.5 USM II. Corking little lens IMHO, and far better than the 28-135IS at only around half the price. But of course, that's just my opini
27 BA747-436 : I recently purchased the 17-40L and it seems to work just fine for my needs. AF is quick photos are sharp and depth of field is pretty good. My setup
28 Mfz : I bought a Tamron XR Di 28-70 f/2.8 in August and carried it around Argentina for four weeks in October as my walkaround-lens on the EOS 33 and a to c
29 Gmonney : Not that I am going to be in cockpits a lot but I know that I will be going on a few trips each year for the sole purpose and I hope to get into the c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The Canon Is Worth It? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 23:54:11 by KBFIspotter
Canon 17-40L F/4 Vs. Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 20:29:50 by Mfz
Canon 17-40L? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 23:12:18 by BA747-436
Is The Canon EOS Digital A Good Camera? posted Tue Jun 15 2004 22:35:36 by CactusHP
Is The Canon EOS Rebel 2000 A Decent Camera? posted Sat Jan 6 2001 02:17:58 by BA
Is There An Alternative To The Canon 350D? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 23:49:25 by Jorge1812
Experience With The Canon EF300 F4 L Is USM? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 16:31:30 by JK
Canon Wide Angles: 16-35L Vs 17-40L posted Thu Feb 10 2005 15:25:23 by Jderden777
Canon 17-85mm Is Experience posted Fri Nov 5 2004 12:35:18 by Maiznblu_757
Is The 6.3 MP Cannon Digital Rebel Enough posted Wed Oct 13 2004 15:14:22 by Miamiair