gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:57 am

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!
 
IL76
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:04 am

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
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:08 am

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...
 
jfazzer
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:02 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 am

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.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:21 am

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

Staffan
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:56 am

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.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:00 am

I have:

12-24
28-135
100-400

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

Luis
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:18 am

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
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:41 am

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...
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:27 am

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
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:22 am

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...
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:58 am

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.
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:17 am

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
 
futterman
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:56 am

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:26 pm

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.

 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:35 pm

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:38 pm

the 50mm ramp shot is being replaced with the 400mm D Reb approach shot.
 
futterman
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:40 pm

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:47 pm

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
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 12:55 pm

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:01 pm

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.
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:53 pm

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
 
dazultra
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:39 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:05 pm

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

Daz.
 
Woody001
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:39 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:35 pm

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...
 
OD720
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:46 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:02 pm

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.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:04 pm

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
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:55 pm

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 opinion although it seems like maestro Mr Work agrees with my opinions on the 28-135!

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
BA747-436
Posts: 1192
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 11:03 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:07 am

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 is:

Canon 17-40L
Canon 28-80L
Canon 100-400L

To be honest im totaly happy with this setup. Most of the time you'll miss not having the mid range focul length than the upper focal length. I dont find a problem with not having something to cover the 20mm between 80-100mm as i hardly shoot at that distance anyway. And if i do I can shoot fine at 80mm and crop down (you'll need a good DSLR or equivilent in megapixles) or 100mm and make it slightly tighter.
Dan Valentine - Bad Ass MOFO Photographer
 
mfz
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:54 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:37 am

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 cover the gap between the 18-55 and the 80-400 on my 300D and I must really say I am totally happy about the lens's performance. Maybe a tiny little bit soft wide open at f/2.8, but stopped down to f/4 it's tack-sharp even at 28mm. So for about 400€ this lens is a real treat if the Canon 24-70L is out of reach!

Ciao

mfz
Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
 
gmonney
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:59 pm

RE: Is The Canon 17-40L Enough....

Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:56 am

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 cockpit to take photo's (when we are on the ground) so I believe that the 17mm range is needed. I agree the 28-80L would be good, don't know if its short enough....

Thanks for all the responses!

Grant
Drive it like you stole it!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests