- This topic is empty.
First Post – Walkaround Lens Advice Needed
-
Hi everybody,
This is my first post on this forums. Nice to meet you all :D
Cheers,
-JohnEasy for this – get the 24-105. It’s got the IS and a good deal extra reach as you say.
I find the 17-40 great for indoors work but as soon as you go outside, you can be stuck for extra reach (unless you deliberately are shooting landscapes). For example, I was on Portamarnock beach 2 weeks ago with the kids. The were splashing in the sea, while I was staying on the sand. As I was shooting, I kept saying to myself that I’ll have to crop later to frame correctly. Ditto at a recent christening where there was too much f/g clutter that I need more zoom to get through. The 24-105 is a great all rounder – of course its compromised at each zoom end, but it’s better to have something so general ready when walking around. You could also consider stiching for pano’s if you really had to. I’ve used the 28-135mm IS for about 18 months now, so the this sort of range is not too limiting (I’ve just sold it to finance the 24-105).
That said, the 17-40 can encourage you to get closer, which is no bad thing. You could also couple it with the x1.4 extender.
BTW, I have the 17-40 and 70-200, one more to go the complete the arsenal!
I use a 16-35 myself which would be similar to the 17-40.
I do have a tendancy to prefer to be closer to subjects than far away…. but I usually carry my 70-200 with me as well just in case.
16-35 for 95% of my walkabout shots…
J
Thanks for all the replies :D
Well, one option like what nfl-fan said is to get the 17-40 and also have along zoom like 70-200 to accompany it. But that means that I will be on a diet for the next month or so, until I recover from the financial blow of having photography as a hobby. But even then, b318isp, who has both of those lenses, still wants to get the 24-105. This is a very confusing time.
I suppose, as one of my mates told me, it all boils down on personal shooting style and preference. I have decided to borrow/beg/rent the 17-40 off a friend. If I find myself not yearning for the extra reach, I will just stick with it. :)
It is a bit of trade off and I know your dilemma
Personally I use the 17-40 (which is more like a 28 to 64 for the 40D)
So the focal range is pretty good for a walk around lens. It is also pretty light weight and compact compared to some other Canon L lenses and possibly most important of all image quality is great. It works well for a wide variety of photographic situations.My next step up lens is the Canon 24-70L which I mostly carry in the bag and only take out when I need longer reach. It is quite heavy by comparison to 17-40
What I really miss on both of those lenses is the IS, which means I will probably in the not too distant future be persuaded to invest in something that gives me the Image Stabilisation
:)
I dont know a lot about lenses, but I have 18-200 3.5 which rarely
leaves my camera, it covers most eventualities (for me anyway) and
they dont seem to be very expensive either, small enough to carry
around without ending up with arms like a gorilla :)CanonJohn wrote:
If I find myself not yearning for the extra reach, I will just stick with it. :)
Let us know how you get on. I’ve had the 17-40 on for a long time now, and the 24-105 is on the way, so I’d be interested in how you find the shorter lens. You’ve done the right thing to trial it anyway,
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
