General purpose lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#1
questions, wanted to get a new lens. love taking buildings and landscape. thanks!:)

17-55 or the 17-40 L.

Im actually surprise that the 17-40 cost about 200bucks lower then the 17-55..
 

#3
another advantage tat 17-55 has over 17-40L is the constant f/2.8 tat u might need for low light conditions

but u wld hav to sacrifice the L built , quality and the red stripe den

17-55mm if i'm not wrong is oso v sharp n is comparable to the 17-40L
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#4
questions, wanted to get a new lens. love taking buildings and landscape. thanks!:)

17-55 or the 17-40 L.

Im actually surprise that the 17-40 cost about 200bucks lower then the 17-55..
well if there is a third option for a traveller`s general purpose lens, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS...more expensive piece of glass.
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#6
i tink 24mm isn't wide enough for landscapes esp nt using a FF
its a tradeoff for greater zoom. For those native/folk/cultural performances, no guarantee will get a good spot so the 105mm end would be useful. Have to see how many percent will be landscapes vs snapshots.

If i had a 24-105mm, i would start learning about stitching photos. not as good as a true wide angle so depends on user usage.
 

fongi

New Member
Aug 19, 2008
256
0
0
#7
i think the 24-105mm is great too, focus fast, sharp, although not as wide as 17-55mm, but is a great walk about for me tho;)
 

issic

New Member
Jun 27, 2008
174
0
0
#9
Let's not forget tat the 17-55 has IS. 17-40 doesn't.
 

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#10
i think the 24-105mm is great too, focus fast, sharp, although not as wide as 17-55mm, but is a great walk about for me tho;)
indeed but the price of it just put me off.. way out of the budget :(
 

gymak90

New Member
Jan 5, 2008
1,448
1
0
The Far North
#11
Let's not forget tat the 17-55 has IS. 17-40 doesn't.
IS for wide angle lenses like 17-40 isn't very helpful, at least for my case. Because you can already avoid handshake blur at slow shutter speeds according to the 1/focal length guide.

indeed but the price of it just put me off.. way out of the budget :(
You can try EF-S 28-135. But I doubt it is wide enough for your landscapes. There is a uwa option: EF-S 10-22.
 

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#12
IS for wide angle lenses like 17-40 isn't very helpful, at least for my case. Because you can already avoid handshake blur at slow shutter speeds according to the 1/focal length guide.


You can try EF-S 28-135. But I doubt it is wide enough for your landscapes. There is a uwa option: EF-S 10-22.
the 10-22 is another option im looking into. anyone had a hands-on review for this lens?? thanks!
 

fongi

New Member
Aug 19, 2008
256
0
0
#13
i oso thinking of gettin a UWA for landscape, i'm considering tokina 11-16 F2.8
read the reviews, seems quite value for $$
 

flashbug

New Member
Dec 1, 2008
152
0
0
East
#14
17mm is not wide enough for some pple that are interested in landscapes.
i have a friend that owns a 17-55, and he finds himself shooting at both extremes most of the time.

you can consider a UWA if you are highly interested in landscape shots. and the quality at the 17mm (mid range) would usually be better than the 17-55 or 17-40.
 

cqprime

New Member
Dec 8, 2008
392
0
0
Singapore, Singapore
#15

clioboy

New Member
May 25, 2008
858
0
0
#17
the 10-22 is another option im looking into. anyone had a hands-on review for this lens?? thanks!
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

just watch out for distorting buildings..don't go 10mm all the time.
 

shunzi

New Member
Nov 14, 2008
925
0
0
#19
speaking abt the 10-22 for landscape, how abt the use of CPL for it? i read abt the problem with its wide angle with the normal CPL. the only way to solve it is to purchase a slim type for it?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom