- This topic is empty.
Canon 17-40L alternatives
-
I love this lens but find the F4 a bit limiting sometimes.
Just wondering if anyone has changed their 17-40 for a better low-light performer? If so what was it? Are you happy with the decision?
I bought a used 16-35 f2.8 in buyandsell a while ago, its a great lens but i’m not sure its waaay better than yours. How do you find the f4 limiting?
Just in low light situations Fintan. I’d love to be able to use it for gigs and at night but my 400d gets very noisy at higher ISO.
There’s always the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, but it’s about twice as much and you don’t say if price is an issue (although I’m guessing it is) – there’s an intereting comparison between the two lenses at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml. Another, more affordable option is the Tamron AF 17-35mm f2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical but I’ve no idea what that lens is like. A good place to check what users think of it is Fred Mirandas Lens Review page
ah I see, maybe go through your shots and see what focal length you use mostly and buy a prime lens closest to your most used focal length OR buy a cheapo canon film camera second hand and use film with that lens
dont kill me for saying it but film can look better in low light and long exposures than some sensors, its a subjective opinion.
Being into U2 I’ve always admired this fans photographs http://www.u2photos.com/ His name is Otto and I’ve been following his stuff for years. I think he does digital now but dozens and dozens of concerts were done on Fuji Superia 800 with a Canon A2 Heres his FAQ http://www.performancephotography.com/about/#42 which gives some info on his equipment.
Just came across the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM, after a friend enquired about one just this weekend (there’s timing for ya). Wasn’t aware of it before, sounds like quite a handy bit of kit looking at some of the reviews & opinions and given its 2.8 with IS it might find it’s way onto my wishlist.
Needless to say I have no personal experience of it so can’t comment on it but thought it might be a useful addition to this thread as no-one’s mentioned it yet.
Articles:
DP Review (Press Release/Spec)
The-Digital-Picture
Fred Miranda
PhotoZone (Canon 17-55 f2.8 )
PhotoZone (Tamron 17-50 f2.8 )The PhotoZone tests are well worth a read and the ‘verdict’ at the end seems quite grounded.
Fintan wrote:
dont kill me for saying it but film can look better in low light and long exposures than some sensors, its a subjective opinion.
That’s my opinion too, digital has some way to catch up in the noise department. Plus having just wandered through some books of b&w photography from 1940s-1980s (Martha Graham and Boxers & Ballerinas) digital doesn’t cut it for ambience. But we’re going off topic now, so I’ll stop :D
Just coming back to this thread now. Thanks for the suggestions.
The EF-S looks very capable with the 2.8 and IS but I’ve read it’s a real dust sucker.
I’ve tried to pin down the focal lengths I shoot most with the 17-40 but I seem to be using both ends and a bit in the middle too.
I think the 16-35 is the most attractive, probably secondhand and after a bit of saving.
Mort, theres a guy in my camera club going to india on the 1st of feb and he’s looking for a 17-40 before he goes. Are you selling in the short term?
the EF-S got a pretty decent score in a recent review, like 86% or something i think. only problem is the limitations of what camera you can use it with. 400D, 30D etc. I’m personally hoping to move up to the big boys in the future so EF-S isn’t an option. EF L series all the way :D
Have to say, I’m in a similar situation. I have the 17-40 but it’s just not fast enough for some of the stuff I do. I’m looking at the 16-35 2.8. I’m also looking at the 1D MKIII, however, which with it’s awesome high ISO performance, may suddenly make the 17-40 an acceptable choice for low light!!
Decisions decisions….
Tim
i would suggest upgrading bodies, you’ll spend alot of money trying to find a lens better than the 17-40.
i use my 17-40 with the canon 20d and have used it at 3200 iso with minimal noise. the trick is getting the exposure correct in camera and not relying on the raw converter to fix it.i’ll post some 100% crops when i get home tonight, but heres a few (shot with a few different lenses, 17-40 and 70-200 and 10-20):
iso 1600:
iso 3200:
heres one at 3200 where i didn’t get the exposure right in camera and had to push it in ps:
bethoh man i’ve seen some high iso shots taken with the MKIII and WOW!!! on 3200 it whoops my 350D on 800. that’s why ya pay 5 grand more :D
The Sigma 20mm f1.8 is quite a nice wee lens. If you try a prime “in or around” the ial length for you, you’ll soon find yourself adapting to the zbf methodology (Zoom By Feet). I in doubt, buy a little wider that you think you want and crop afterwards.
Merv.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
