avsquare said:US$750 for the UWA, I guess SG pricing should be the same as Canon's 17-40L. I wonder if the quality would be about that too?
avsquare said:US$750 for the UWA, I guess SG pricing should be the same as Canon's 17-40L. I wonder if the quality would be about that too?
Do you mean quality as in true high end L lens quality or the dubious weak optical quality of the 17-40mm f/4L?
Haha. Not a fan boy of either camp, since I use both makes, but the 17-40mm L has never been known for quality in my books. I hope Nikon's offerings won't be anywhere near the 17-40mm when it comes to quality.
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.
Do you mean quality as in true high end L lens quality or the dubious weak optical quality of the 17-40mm f/4L?
Haha. Not a fan boy of either camp, since I use both makes, but the 17-40mm L has never been known for quality in my books. I hope Nikon's offerings won't be anywhere near the 17-40mm when it comes to quality.
avsquare said:But again, there are wonderful lens from Nikon like 85 f/1.8G which performs almost the same as the 85 f/1.4G, and when all these images sized down to web view, looks all the same :bsmilie:
Kit said:I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.
lenslust said:Used the earlier 'D' version. Am pretty pleased with the results give it's a budget WA (on a D100). It's a very good buy for what it's worth.
The down side is the visible pincushion effect at the wide ends. Sharpness was something that can be improved, but it was very good enough already at the standards of those days.
It's a good option over the 16-35 f/4 if you don't need the VR and constant f/4. Colour rendition of the 18-35 was quite good too.
I bought my 1st copy of the 17-40mm back in 2003, when it was launched. Back then, it was Canon's wide angle saviour. Cheap and good, relatively speaking. I don't know if anyone remember how bad their 17-35mm and 16-35mm mki was. Those were stinkers. When 6mp DSLRs ruled the earth, the 17-40mm was probably one of the few wide angle zoom which gave good results. I got a 2nd copy years later and used it with a 5d mkii. With the correct technique, its still an alright lens.
Ah, I hate when people upload only lowres photos on flickr!
Yeah. I guess there weren't many choices back in 2003. But the launch of the various EF-S lenses certainly didn't make the 17-40mm look good at all. There is the stellar 17-55mm offering excellent optical quality, larger aperture and IS. There is also the superb 10-22mm, providing the extra wide view. Other then for use with the APS-H and the older full frame cameras, I really don't see why the 17-40mm is any useful today. And how it deserves the "L" branding.
Would agree with you - I've toyed with a 2nd hand copy of the 16-35 mark one at one of the 2nd hand shops at Peninsular, the CA was terrible by today's "standards". I've always been wondering when will Canon refresh the 17-40L because it's kind of... old (it's already a decade). Indeed by 6MP DSLR standards it's a very good lens. But the past 2 years seemed to be all about MP raise.. now people is complaining that the D800's 36MP sensor is exposing all the optical flaws of most of the existing lens :bsmilie:
Kit said:The newer EF-S lenses doesn't mean anything if you are using FF bodies. So you are still quite limited in choices unless you go with the 3rd party lenses. Like I mentioned before, the 17-40mm is capable of delivering decent results with the 5D MKII. I wouldn't imagine that it would be much different on the 5D MKIII.
Kit said:Higher resolution also demand better camera handling techniques. Yes, people are complaining about ultra high resolution cameras. On the other hand, I still see people insisting that they can handhold 1/8th sec shots with the latest and greatest VR/IS. There you go.