Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

17-40L worh it?

  • 20-01-2009 2:28pm
    #1
    Duchovny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭


    Hey guys

    I don't know if its worth having both lens, i have a Canon 10-22 a 28-135 IS USM and a 70-300 IS USM, and i was thinking to get a 17-40L to use in a 40D, after checking few forums is it worth it to have the 10-22 and the 17-40L? i do mostly landscapes photography and the 17-40L was kinda to replace the 28-135 but i don't know if is really worth it, anyone that have both of them?

    Thanks


Comments

  • #2
    feileacan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭feileacan


    wouldnt really see the point if you the wide angle anyway.

    i have it and although im not any expert, its a decent lens.


  • #3
    Tactical
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Tactical


    The L-series glass usually speaks for itself.

    I've the 24-70mm f2.8 L and feel its a very capable lens.

    The 17-40mm is an f4 right? This'll be fine for landscape but you may fine the apeture a little limiting for other uses.

    Ok its half the price and half the weight. For landscape its probably a pretty good piece of kit.

    Either way, L-series is good kit both optically and build quality.


  • #4
    Duchovny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Duchovny


    Tactical wrote: »
    The L-series glass usually speaks for itself.

    I've the 24-70mm f2.8 L and feel its a very capable lens.

    The 17-40mm is an f4 right? This'll be fine for landscape but you may fine the apeture a little limiting for other uses.

    Ok its half the price and half the weight. For landscape its probably a pretty good piece of kit.

    Either way, L-series is good kit both optically and build quality.

    For me being f4 its fine as i do very long exposures so i often use f22 and so on, the thing is the 10-22 as L quality the only thing missing is really the L and the red line in front, all the reviews say the same about it, it should be a L, so i dont know if i really will benefit from the 17-40L or not :S hard decision.


  • #5
    shepthedog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭shepthedog


    I have the 17-40L and love it.. There was a thread on this very recently so have a quick search and that should fill you in more..


  • #6
    dazftw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,728 ✭✭✭dazftw


    Get a 50mm.

    You have
    10 - 22
    28 - 135
    &
    70-300

    Your missing a 50mm.

    I have a 17 - 40 its a great lense but you don't need it, you need a 50mm. It can be a great landscape lense

    :)

    p.s sorry if I seem a bit harsh but its the one lense your missing to cover all focal lengths & needs.

    Network with your people: https://www.builtinireland.ie/



  • Advertisement
  • #7
    City-Exile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,547 ✭✭✭City-Exile


    I don't think the 50mm is a great landscape lens at all!
    It was the only lens I had with me recently and found it very limiting.
    In fact, I actually brought the kit lens with me the next time.

    The 50mm is fine for portraits and the like.

    As for 17-40mm I think the two lenses you have, cover everything you would get from that.


Advertisement