A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens...

Featured Equipment Deals

Introduction to Lightroom: Exporting Images (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Lightroom: Exporting Images (Video Tutorial)

Learn how to properly export your photos once you've developed them in Lightroom, including metadata, watermark, naming, choosing your export location, and more.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

This video explores the second half of photography's history and development from the technological advances in the late 1800s through the beginnings of digital photography at the end of the 20th...


Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens Vs Tokina 11-16 vs Bower vs Canon 10-22Mm?

Responses


First     Prev     1   |   2    

Jim H. , Dec 08, 2010; 01:13 p.m.

The 10-22 is the only serious wide lens I have it truly is a L glass without the label and if you need to justify the money do like I did by it at amazon for 12 months same as cash it was a lot easier to make affordable, I will post some samples , same old saying a picture is truly worth at least 700 dollars for a good lens. To be honest I bought it for the weddings I shoot it seems like there is always 15 in a adding party in a church that is 30 foot wide and this lens works perfectly , its has some shadow at 10 if you are only focusing on one very close shot of one person, but thats rare, for outside it adds lots of color and you can see it in the picture, I'll post a few,if you want ill send you to some bigger jpegs,

simon sutcliffe , Dec 08, 2010; 04:26 p.m.

I just saw the Tokina 16.5-135 which seems like a good starter that covers most of my needs, or the Canon 18-135. I might buy the 50mm f/1.8 and then wait awhile to see what type of shooting I like the most

Yakim Peled , Dec 08, 2010; 05:12 p.m.

I don't get it. Do you want wider AoV or not? If so, get the 10-22 or 11-16. If not, 17-55/2.8 IS (for the aperture) or 15-85 IS (for the range) are your best alternatives. Hypezooms like the ones you've just mentioned will likely be disappointing WRT IQ.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Richard Harris , Dec 08, 2010; 05:23 p.m.

I use the 11-16/2.8 and really like it, but I bought it because I need the wider aperture for lowlight events. Unless you do this too (by the sounds of it you don't) I'd go with something that has a greater range. I wouldn't go for the Canon L lens, simply because of the cost and you're a beginner - you'd find the same satisfaction from something cheaper I think. I've never known anyone pick up a UWA and be disappointed in honesty, non of them are really bad, if you're using middle apertures and composing effectively, almost everyone seems to have "fun" with them. Checkout the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, I think you'd be very happy with any of those (as would I).

Adam Tomaszewski , Dec 09, 2010; 12:32 a.m.

I have been lurking these forums quite a bit and couldn't agree more with Erwin, Dan, and Louis on this matter. Use your kit lens for awhile. I fell into the "gotta have that lens" trap and it was a costly whim. Sage advice to see what your needs are before going at it. To actually answer your question, were I to have to choose again ... I'd get the 17-40L, it's range suits me better.

After returning, or selling all the random lenses I had bought (many with overlapping focal lengths) I settled on just a couple. I still keep my 28-135mm kit lens as my walk around (one day it will be replaced with the 24-105L glass). It's not a bad lens at all for being labeled "kit", it works on my 40D, and will one day work on a full-frame if I go that way. I have the nifty-fifty in my bag because it's amazing for low light and high quality, and I have the 35mm f/2, which I find to be a nice addition to my bag when I need a 'normal' fixed-focal length on my sub-frame and lighter weight.

I owned the Canon 10-22 for a time, and loved the wide angle on my 40D. Even still, I recently sold it. I discovered, personally, my landscape shots were rarely that wide, and it was something that got left in the house, or hotel room to save weight in my bag. Of my 20 or 30,000 captures, I probably had 50 at 10mm, and another 50 at the other lengths that lens would reach. It wasn't right for me but it's an amazing lens for those who it is right for.

Best of luck, friend!

Richard Crowe , Dec 09, 2010; 06:00 p.m.

Louis... You should be getting very-good imagery within the confines of the kit lens' apertures and focal range. If you are and wish to broaden your capabilities, perhaps another lens might be a good choice. However if you are not getting consistently very-good images, your technique is at fault.
I suggest that you work at getting the utmost out of your kit lens (which is really a pretty decent lens) and only then upgrade to another lens.

Richard Hatch , Dec 10, 2010; 11:23 a.m.

I think your mention of tight budget is the limiting factor.
I'm a big believer in trying out different lenses and getting good glass.... but that can run into some money.
Check out Lensrentals.com for costs of renting as an option to explore. They also have some good deals on used lenses they have rented.
For shooting "wider" with what you have learn about shooting panoramic and stitching. It is probably the most affordable "wide" there is.
Regards,
Richard


First     Prev     1   |   2    

Back to top

Notify me of Responses