Is the 17-40mm 4.0L lens good for portrait?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 30, 2007
59
0
0
#1
Hello, I am thinking of getting this lens (currently deciding btw 17-55mm or 17-40), anyone thikns that the 17-40mm is not a good portrait lens? Your reason? Thks for reading.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#2
Hello, I am thinking of getting this lens (currently deciding btw 17-55mm or 17-40), anyone thikns that the 17-40mm is not a good portrait lens? Your reason? Thks for reading.
I've been shooting numerous portraits and model shoots with my 17-40 and has proved to be very gd. But soon i'm replacing it with a 50 f/1.2 so my 17-40 will be 'reassigned' to concentrate on street shoots and landscapes.
 

vector1

New Member
Feb 3, 2007
550
0
0
#3
I would find 17-40 abit too wide for closer portraits, not to mention the max f/4, which will not have more control over DOF than the f/2.8 of the 17-55. I would go for the 17-55 if you're looking into doing portraits, and maybe some slightly more telephoto lenses (50/85/100/135 primes)
 

subxero

New Member
Aug 24, 2007
266
0
0
West
#5
Distance between subject and photographer also matters right? :)
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#6
it matters too whether full body plus clothes are to be captured. for wedding portraits, there will be shots which require capturing of the entire gown with train, etc.
 

boredphuck

Deregistered
Aug 24, 2007
690
0
0
Sengkang
www.flickr.com
#7
this is a picture shot this morning with the 17-40. forgive me for the poor composition and blown highlights. green cast was from window panes.

 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#8
When i do my model shoots. Sometimes i like to frame them with the surroundings so a wide-angle is ideal. If tele is used, have to stand really far away and sometimes have space constraints.
 

Jul 17, 2007
21
0
0
#9
Hello, I am thinking of getting this lens (currently deciding btw 17-55mm or 17-40), anyone thikns that the 17-40mm is not a good portrait lens? Your reason? Thks for reading.
Hi 17-40 is better for scenary. You may end up being too close to the model too. The 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens cos of its versatility ie great for wide angle and full body shots. However, it is pricey.

For portrait shots (esp for those head shots), i prefer the 85mm f1.4. The f.14 comes in very handy for outdoor shots to help blurr out the distractions from the background. Given that it is a prime lens, the quality is great -Never regretted the above mentioned 2 lenses.

j
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#10
Hi 17-40 is better for scenary. You may end up being too close to the model too. The 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens cos of its versatility ie great for wide angle and full body shots. However, it is pricey.

For portrait shots (esp for those head shots), i prefer the 85mm f1.4. The f.14 comes in very handy for outdoor shots to help blurr out the distractions from the background. Given that it is a prime lens, the quality is great -Never regretted the above mentioned 2 lenses.

j
85mm only got f/1.2 and f/1.8. There's no such f/1.4.
 

Aug 30, 2007
59
0
0
#11
Thanks all. It is indeed personal perference. I have another question for those who use 17-40mm to take portraits. Now, is the distortion in your portrait pics taken with 17-40mm noticeable, well this question just pop up in my mind when I looked at the sample shots if the 17-40mm. Thks.
 

Aug 26, 2006
708
0
16
Singapore
#12
If you are using it on a crop factor dslr, I see no problem. Just go for 35mm or 50mm range after your 1.3x or 1.6x conversion.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#15
Thanks all. It is indeed personal perference. I have another question for those who use 17-40mm to take portraits. Now, is the distortion in your portrait pics taken with 17-40mm noticeable, well this question just pop up in my mind when I looked at the sample shots if the 17-40mm. Thks.
Not at all. Perhaps it's due to me using a 1.6x sensor, therefore not noticeable.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#16
Hello, I am thinking of getting this lens (currently deciding btw 17-55mm or 17-40), anyone thikns that the 17-40mm is not a good portrait lens? Your reason? Thks for reading.
It depends on what you mean by "portrait".

Portrait <> Closeup.
Portrait <> Shot of the face

If you know the lens well, you can certainly use a 17-40 for "portraits".

But if you try to shoot a closeup with a 17-40, you'll have to decide if your subject likes big noses. It works for some, eg. portraits of clowns.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#17
It depends on what you mean by "portrait".

Portrait <> Closeup.
Portrait <> Shot of the face

If you know the lens well, you can certainly use a 17-40 for "portraits".

But if you try to shoot a closeup with a 17-40, you'll have to decide if your subject likes big noses. It works for some, eg. portraits of clowns.
Closeups of your subjects doesn't mean big noses, etc. It depends on how u take it. Results can be impressive.
 

Jul 17, 2007
21
0
0
#18
85mm only got f/1.2 and f/1.8. There's no such f/1.4.
Standard, Telephoto & Super Telephoto Lenses
AF 50mm f/1.4D - ($425~$448) | $448 (MS, Jul07 - die_Blende) | $425 (Grey, TCW - DeadEnd) | $445 (TK, Nov07 - Aim)
AF 50mm f/1.8D - ($170~$185) | $175 (Lord's, Sep07 - Ambious) | $170 (OP, Sep07 - helmiz)
AF 85mm f/1.4D IF - $1750 (CP, Oct07 - chitchit4)
AF 85mm f/1.8D - $615 (CP, Sept05 - simon80) | $620 (Lord's, Aug06 - Jigsawman) | $635 (MS, Aug07 - matthew1381)
AF 105mm f/2D DC - $1425 (TK, Jan06 - jOhO)
AF 135mm f/2D DC - $1720 (CP, Jan06 - anka)
AF 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED - $1150 (w/o gst, CP, Aug06 - nature)
AF-S 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED II (non-VR) - $6350 (w/o GST, MS, Dec05 - flash77)
AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED - $1680 (Grey, TCW, Dec05 - Nik-enduser)
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#19
Standard, Telephoto & Super Telephoto Lenses
AF 50mm f/1.4D - ($425~$448) | $448 (MS, Jul07 - die_Blende) | $425 (Grey, TCW - DeadEnd) | $445 (TK, Nov07 - Aim)
AF 50mm f/1.8D - ($170~$185) | $175 (Lord's, Sep07 - Ambious) | $170 (OP, Sep07 - helmiz)
AF 85mm f/1.4D IF - $1750 (CP, Oct07 - chitchit4)
AF 85mm f/1.8D - $615 (CP, Sept05 - simon80) | $620 (Lord's, Aug06 - Jigsawman) | $635 (MS, Aug07 - matthew1381)
AF 105mm f/2D DC - $1425 (TK, Jan06 - jOhO)
AF 135mm f/2D DC - $1720 (CP, Jan06 - anka)
AF 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED - $1150 (w/o gst, CP, Aug06 - nature)
AF-S 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED II (non-VR) - $6350 (w/o GST, MS, Dec05 - flash77)
AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED - $1680 (Grey, TCW, Dec05 - Nik-enduser)
Canon, Canon, Canon.. ;)
 

Jul 17, 2007
21
0
0
#20
85mm only got f/1.2 and f/1.8. There's no such f/1.4.
Standard, Telephoto & Super Telephoto Lenses
AF 50mm f/1.4D - ($425~$448) | $448 (MS, Jul07 - die_Blende) | $425 (Grey, TCW - DeadEnd) | $445 (TK, Nov07 - Aim)
AF 50mm f/1.8D - ($170~$185) | $175 (Lord's, Sep07 - Ambious) | $170 (OP, Sep07 - helmiz)
AF 85mm f/1.4D IF - $1750 (CP, Oct07 - chitchit4)
AF 85mm f/1.8D - $615 (CP, Sept05 - simon80) | $620 (Lord's, Aug06 - Jigsawman) | $635 (MS, Aug07 - matthew1381)
AF 105mm f/2D DC - $1425 (TK, Jan06 - jOhO)
AF 135mm f/2D DC - $1720 (CP, Jan06 - anka)
AF 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED - $1150 (w/o gst, CP, Aug06 - nature)
AF-S 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED II (non-VR) - $6350 (w/o GST, MS, Dec05 - flash77)
AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED - $1680 (Grey, TCW, Dec05 - Nik-enduser)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom