Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 21 Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4122 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:
70-200mmL IS and the 1.4x converter
Maybe some prime lenses later on...
I currently own a:
Canon 75-300mm USM III
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
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2236 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4085 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.
Jfazzer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 153 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4060 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.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4062 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.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3973 times:
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!
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3936 times:
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.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 47 Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3909 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.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3893 times:
If I didn't cover the 40-100mm gap I'd save a bunch of my on film that's for sure 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.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 47 Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3893 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.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9550 posts, RR: 70 Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3888 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.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 47 Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3886 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.
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.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3859 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.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1923 posts, RR: 34 Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3824 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.
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