If you have a 17-40mm and can only buy 1 lens for a trip, ultra-wide or tele?


Status
Not open for further replies.

WuffRuff

New Member
Jan 10, 2007
1,124
0
0
opp. East Coast Park
#1
If you have a 17-40mm lens and want to get one more lens for a trip... and can only afford either 10-22mm or 70-200 f4L, which lens would you get?
In other words, between ultra-wide zoom and tele zoom for a trip, which one would you choose? :dunno:
 

Mar 10, 2008
243
0
0
22
Pasir Ris
#3
70-200mm too. cause you already have the 17-40mm, although it isn't wide enough.
 

diver-hloc

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 17, 2007
5,213
13
38
Somewhere North
#5
Depends on where I'm going.... and what I like to shoot on this trip.

Example -

Counties with open landscape and big mountain range - I would get an Ultra Wide.

My 2-Cents Worth.....
 

diver-hloc

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 17, 2007
5,213
13
38
Somewhere North
#6
go for 70-200 since you have 17-40 and you dont need the 10-22 cause both are wide angle lens.
Hahaha.... that would depends on TS having a Crop Factor or Full Frame Camera....

17-40mm x 1.6 = 27-64mm

10-22mm x 1.6 = 16-35mm

27mm compare to 16mm..... there is a big difference ;)
 

KangS

New Member
Sep 15, 2005
1,115
0
0
#7
Depends on where I'm going.... and what I like to shoot on this trip.

Example -

Counties with open landscape and big mountain range - I would get an Ultra Wide.

My 2-Cents Worth.....
That's very true. I have a Tamron 17-50 and I brought along my 70-200 along for a trip (nearly 3 weeks) last year too. But turned out, I barely used the 70-200 for more than 10% or my shots! :dunno:

If you're using crop, think a travel combo would comprise of 2-3 lenses, depending on needs and location in question.

Ultrawide: 10-22 or 12-24
Walkabout: 17-40, 17-50, 17-85
Tele: 55-250, 70-200, 70-300

Or if you want to travel light : 10-22, 35, 85 with a 1.4x or 2x tele convertor.

For FF, likewise depends on what you want to do:
Ultrawide: Sigma 12-24, 16-35, 17-40
Walkabout: 24-70, 24-105
Tele: 70-200, 70-300

Or a light combo: Sigma 12-24, 50, 100mm with a 1.4x or 2x tele convertor. Or substitute the 50 and 100mm for a 24-105mm and bring along the 1.4x Tele convertor.

Just some suggestions. :sweat:
 

Last edited:

adamadam

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2004
3,637
0
0
32
Perth
www.flickr.com
#8
I've never used my 70-200 on my trip so far, probably because I don't bring it out.
Actually, I used it to shoot a balloon from the balcony, but that's it.
I would have left it back home if my friends would have borrowed it, but nobody wanted it, so I brought it with me.

Ultrawide would get a lot more use than the tele! :)
 

Benosaurous

Senior Member
May 21, 2008
808
0
16
#10
all you need is 17-40, anything too wide, shoot in paranoma. maybe bring a 50 1.8 for low light portraits, or better still a flash. thats all you need! at least for me.
 

ahbian

Senior Member
May 23, 2006
2,467
0
0
#11
bring the 17-40. Stitch your shots. Save money.
 

WuffRuff

New Member
Jan 10, 2007
1,124
0
0
opp. East Coast Park
#13
Hahaha.... that would depends on TS having a Crop Factor or Full Frame Camera....

17-40mm x 1.6 = 27-64mm

10-22mm x 1.6 = 16-35mm

27mm compare to 16mm..... there is a big difference ;)
Crop factor la... If full frame, 17-40 would be wide enough already.
Yahhh... big difference... that's why thinking to get it... :think:

I've never used my 70-200 on my trip so far, probably because I don't bring it out.
Actually, I used it to shoot a balloon from the balcony, but that's it.
I would have left it back home if my friends would have borrowed it, but nobody wanted it, so I brought it with me.

Ultrawide would get a lot more use than the tele! :)
You never ask me mah... would be more than willing to borrow it... hehe... ;p

No need to buy 10-22 or 70-200, just bring 17-40 enough.
I've used this lens for coming to 2 years already... that's why I know it is not wide enough!

Seems like it's better for me to get 10-22 for a trip...
 

WuffRuff

New Member
Jan 10, 2007
1,124
0
0
opp. East Coast Park
#15
Ok :D
Then yes 10-22 :D hoho
A few weeks ago I went on a trip, mostly used 17-85 and 12-24. :D hee haw
Is 12-24 wide enough?
Was thinking if I wanna get an ultra-wide, might as well get the widest I can find... since I already have 17-40... have already covered from 17mm onwards.
 

adamadam

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2004
3,637
0
0
32
Perth
www.flickr.com
#16
Is 12-24 wide enough?
Was thinking if I wanna get an ultra-wide, might as well get the widest I can find... since I already have 17-40... have already covered from 17mm onwards.
12-24 is wide enough, but if you want to go wider, then 10-22 :D

or a Sigma 12-24 on full frame yeh? :D more gear hoho
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,660
6
38
#17
Same ol answer I'll give - it all depends on what and how you shoot.

On a 1.6x crop, your 17-40 is like a standard zoom. It's NOT a wide zoom, and definitely not an ultra wide.

If you're traveling in a lot of open plains and vistas and you'll be looking at the ranges from kilometres away, and you like sniping and taking lots of close-ups and portraits, then I would say 1740 & 70200, but if your travels include a lot of temples, urban or built areas and architecture, and you tend to always find that your 1740 is 'just not wide enuff', then I would definitely say 1022 & 1740 and perhaps borrow a 50mm.

I've used the 1022 on assignments before and it's a top-notch performer. While I have no issues with 3rd parties, I would just spend that little bit more and get the 1022. It's really really worth that few extra hundred bucks for the consistency and peace of mind.

If I were to get a 70200, assuming from your size and built and that you won't be using a tripod most of the time, I would definitely save for the f/4 IS version. The extra you spend would be more than made up for in terms of keeper shots that do not have handshake, and the joy and satisfaction you'll get from using the lens.

Good luck in your search and enjoy your trip ... to where ever. ;)
 

Last edited:

MarkTan89

New Member
Jun 30, 2007
591
0
0
Boon Keng
#18
Depends on where you're going I feel. If you're going to those European countries with breathtaking landscapes then the 10-22mm would be a better choice or if you wish to take other things besides landscape then the 70-200f/4L would be better.
 

emlee

Senior Member
Mar 10, 2008
1,763
1
38
Ang Mo Kio
#19
It looks to me as if your default of 17-40mm is because it is a L lens. drop that idea. your truely useful focal range should be 10-22mm and 70-200mm.

stop thinking L lens, think you and your environment. i've seen people using non L but produces great pictures.
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,660
6
38
#20
It looks to me as if your default of 17-40mm is because it is a L lens. drop that idea. your truely useful focal range should be 10-22mm and 70-200mm.

stop thinking L lens, think you and your environment. i've seen people using non L but produces great pictures.
You're suggesting sell the 1740, and get the 1022/70200 combo?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom