Is 17-40mm a good lens?


niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#1
Hi all...i need help on deciding of what lens to buy...

Mostly i take group photos of friend and landscape with my 500D..

So is it better to consider tokina 11-16mm or save up to get 16-35mm/24 f1.4?

All opinions will be appreciated...:)
 

xluak48

New Member
Jul 21, 2009
188
0
0
28
Singapore
#2
i think a 17-55 f 2.8 would be a better choice for you. 17-55 is a hidden L . produce L quality.
 

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#3
but sometimes im jus thinking that i may change to FF one day..so it may be a waste to buy EF-S lenses...:)
 

frankchn

New Member
Dec 8, 2008
297
0
0
#4
Yes, it is a very good lens (a little soft in the corners on FF but I digress). However, you should get the 17-55/2.8 IS and sell the lens when you decide to move to FF. You gain much more flexibility that way.
 

Radiant

New Member
Oct 19, 2009
239
0
0
Singapore
#6
Would like to recommend always buy what you need now.....
It's the focal range that you will be working on and developing your skills.
It will be a bit off choosing a FF lens (ie the zoom range) for a crop body.

For the record, 17-55mm IS f2.8 is a fantastic lens. It's on my crop body 80% of the time when I had a crop body. Many many owners of this lens will swear by it.

17-40 does not have IS and it's just a tad short vs the 17-55mm. And it's f4 vs f2.8.
The down side is the 17-55mm cost more though.

A lot of flexibility for the user on 17-55mm.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#7
:)I love my prime lens..

i got a 50mm f1.4

but i jus hate it when i use 50mm with my 500D due to not so wide when i take people's photo...

as a result even i move back the picture only capture the person portrait photo without much of the background..

and when i use my kit lens(18-55mm) at night..it is great with the help of flash but the background seems to be dark..

so actually i am thinking of getting a wide angle lens to shoot landscape and people as well..

maybe i jus wanna upgrade my kit lens..


i am considering tokina 11-16mm

or this 17-40

while upgrading to FF or buying 24mm /16-35,i need to wait for quite long.:):)


so u guys think 17-55IS will be great?

Or should i jus upgrade to 5Dmk2 by selling my 500D?and jus use 50 mm for the time being?
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#8
if u have the intention to upgrade to FF soon (within 1-2 years), i advised u to get 17-40.

Cos if u get 10-22, u can't use it on FF and u got to sell it at a loss (although usually the loss not high)
 

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#9
if u have the intention to upgrade to FF soon (within 1-2 years), i advised u to get 17-40.

Cos if u get 10-22, u can't use it on FF and u got to sell it at a loss (although usually the loss not high)
sinned..jus wanna ask..do u think i should jus sell my 500D and get 5D mk2 rather than buying anymore lenses?
 

sinned79

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2009
10,868
3
0
Singapore
www.aboutlove.sg
#10
sinned..jus wanna ask..do u think i should jus sell my 500D and get 5D mk2 rather than buying anymore lenses?
if u think u are ready for FF then just go for it.

what lens are u using currently? If all are EF lens then no problem u still can use them on your FF.

But just note... 5DMKII only 9 AF points like 450D... so if u are particular about X no of AF points then u better wait for MKIII. :)
 

nedy77

New Member
Jun 21, 2005
999
0
0
#11
sinned..jus wanna ask..do u think i should jus sell my 500D and get 5D mk2 rather than buying anymore lenses?
I think it's more worthwhile to buy lenses than upgrade a body. unless you really need a full frame body or a faster fps body, then stick to getting better lenses
 

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#12
thx all for the opinions...;)

im using 50mm f1.4 and kit lens only...

yea i think of saving up first la maybe to get decent lenses before switching to FF....

i am not fussy abt 9 Af points..i think it's enough alr...:)
 

Last edited:

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#13
If you are used to seeing the bokeh of the 50mm lens at f/1.4, then the 17-40 might not be able to impress you. IMO. Because, I am used to seeing the bokeh at f/1.8, then I used this f/2.8 lens and it didn't really impress. I know DOF isn't everything, and colour and sharpness etc should be considered too, but it's just my opinion. :)
ahahaha..u r such an insomniac too...

um maybe true also...then i should wait till few years to get 24mm f1.4..hahahhaha
 

pokiemon

Senior Member
Mar 5, 2005
2,039
0
0
#14
i would get a 17-40 f4.0 first before upgrading to a 16-35 f2.8.

test it out first. for all you know it is good enough for your requirements.
 

pokiemon

Senior Member
Mar 5, 2005
2,039
0
0
#15
If you are used to seeing the bokeh of the 50mm lens at f/1.4, then the 17-40 might not be able to impress you. IMO. Because, I am used to seeing the bokeh at f/1.8, then I used this f/2.8 lens and it didn't really impress. I know DOF isn't everything, and colour and sharpness etc should be considered too, but it's just my opinion. :)
dont understand why you are comparing a 50mm f1.4 to a 17-40 f4.0? :dunno:
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#18
I don't see why the 17-40mm f/4 L lens is a bad lens. It's as good as it get for its age, although it is not terribly cheap. But then again, I won't expect a L lens to be so.
 

niciku

New Member
Sep 30, 2009
53
0
0
#20
17-40 is the cheapest L lens actually haha. :)
thats what actually attracts me of getting this lens..but i think i may jus get 24mm f1.4 at the end of this year...

so 17-40 is affordable together with good image quality?:):)
 

Top Bottom