General purpose lens
- Thread starter shunzi
- Start date
- Status
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
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
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.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..
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.
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
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.indeed but the price of it just put me off.. way out of the budget
the 10-22 is another option im looking into. anyone had a hands-on review for this lens?? thanks!
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.
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.
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..
If possible go for a 16-35mm and u can take shots in poor lightening too.
http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_4_EN.pdf
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
just watch out for distorting buildings..don't go 10mm all the time.
- Status
