WTB 17-40L with confidence :)


Status
Not open for further replies.

rainman

New Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,314
0
0
39
In my own world
#1
Hi guys I was thinking to get a WA lens...other than this L lens itself, any more lens that can par with it? sigma 15-30? tamron or tokina? or 16-35L?

Hope u guys can post some pics of taken by this lens, a side by side comparison with other similar lens or non-L len, so that I'm can convince myself better!

And of cos if u r selling pls PM me. Not only this but any WA lens.Thanks!
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,537
0
0
Visit site
#2
the only lens that beats this is the EF 16-35L.

just buy lah. compare here n there will only make u waste xtra time. buy already then use it like there's no tomorrow! :cool:
 

NiVleK

New Member
May 15, 2003
824
0
0
Jurong West
daddy.nivlek.per.sg
#3
clive said:
the only lens that beats this is the EF 16-35L.

just buy lah. compare here n there will only make u waste xtra time. buy already then use it like there's no tomorrow! :cool:
So you are saying the 16-35L is better than the 17-40L?
 

rainman

New Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,314
0
0
39
In my own world
#4
clive said:
the only lens that beats this is the EF 16-35L.

just buy lah. compare here n there will only make u waste xtra time. buy already then use it like there's no tomorrow! :cool:

know y i ask? cos I have a 28-105 Mk2..the image quality is actually not bad if i stopped down to f8 or more....though I lose some DOF but who cares :blah:

Just wan to physically see the image quality of both lens...before i justified my purchase...got $ but too many things to buy so need to be careful :)
 

Feb 22, 2002
431
0
16
31
singapore
Visit site
#5
the focusing of the 15-30 is very loud ... i used to have it and it cannot acept front filters which gives me lots of prob... there was once i was near this water fall and a bit of water splash in... it took me almost 30min to clean it off :confused:
 

XXX Boy

New Member
Jan 11, 2004
1,159
0
0
43
GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
#6
rainman said:
know y i ask? cos I have a 28-105 Mk2..the image quality is actually not bad if i stopped down to f8 or more....though I lose some DOF but who cares :blah:

Just wan to physically see the image quality of both lens...before i justified my purchase...got $ but too many things to buy so need to be careful :)
It is not alway the case of losing some DOF. In some case, people buy fast lenses to shoot wide-open in low-light condition. Don't always think you are shooting at f8, use your equipment creatively rather than tie yourself down with constraits!
 

misnomer

New Member
Jun 30, 2004
11
0
0
Westerner
#7
rainman said:
Hi guys I was thinking to get a WA lens...other than this L lens itself, any more lens that can par with it? sigma 15-30? tamron or tokina? or 16-35L?

Hope u guys can post some pics of taken by this lens, a side by side comparison with other similar lens or non-L len, so that I'm can convince myself better!

And of cos if u r selling pls PM me. Not only this but any WA lens.Thanks!
Rainman,
lots of info on this subject.....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=8868718

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/... ...7-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/... ...6-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=2&sort=7&thecat=27

Conventional wisdom is that the 17-40L is sharper at the tele-end, corner to corner, and suffers less distortion, and of course cheaper. 16-35 has that extra stop of light. I don't have either lens so I've no comparisons for you.
 

Amfibius

Deregistered
Jan 26, 2004
509
0
0
46
Perth
#8
misnomer said:
Rainman,
Conventional wisdom is that the 17-40L is sharper at the tele-end,
Sharper at the wide end, actually :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom