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


Status
Not open for further replies.

loveholics

New Member
Aug 30, 2007
59
0
0
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.
 

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.
 

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)
 

It's all abt personal prefs as portraitures are not limited to teleshots. f/4 is gd enough for portraits.
 

Distance between subject and photographer also matters right? :)
 

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.
 

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.

2058392557_6523da5c95.jpg
 

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.
 

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
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

..............
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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)
 

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.. ;)
 

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.