October 20, 2014, 06:51:49 PM

Author Topic: New lens or body?  (Read 6534 times)

Eagle Eye

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2011, 07:40:43 PM »
You just cannot go wrong with the 17-40mm.  While slower and a little less range than the 17-55, it will make the jump with you when/if you go to full frame and you will not be disappointed.  That said, what about looking at some fast primes?  For about the cost of the 17-40, you could pick up a 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4.  I would think about what you think is technically limiting your creativity at this point and buy to compensate.  If your 18-55 lives on the camera but you just aren't happy with the results, buy a mid-range zoom.  If none of your lenses function well enough in low light, fast primes. 
Gear! When do we get gear?!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2011, 07:40:43 PM »

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2011, 10:07:40 PM »
for landscape work?  no qualms about losing the stop to an f/2.8 lens.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8854
    • View Profile
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2011, 01:25:49 AM »
I had both the 17-40, 17-55, 18-55, sigma 17-70, and the 17-55 fas easily the best.  The 17-40 is not really the best for a crop camera, and on my 5D MK II, it was very sharp, but did not seem to have the POP that my other "L" lenses did.  It is a good lens, but not a great lens.  I sold mine and bought a used Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that is much better.

I paid about $550 for mine used, so for the money it was a very good lens, but then the used Tokina 17mm cost me $125 and its excellent.

Here are some images I took using the 5D MK II with the 17-40mm L at yellowstone in 2009.




awinphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2002
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2011, 10:09:58 AM »
You just cannot go wrong with the 17-40mm.  While slower and a little less range than the 17-55, it will make the jump with you when/if you go to full frame and you will not be disappointed.  That said, what about looking at some fast primes?  For about the cost of the 17-40, you could pick up a 35mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4.  I would think about what you think is technically limiting your creativity at this point and buy to compensate.  If your 18-55 lives on the camera but you just aren't happy with the results, buy a mid-range zoom.  If none of your lenses function well enough in low light, fast primes.

+1.  In the end it's all about personal preference and how you shoot (and sadly what copy you get of each lens)... I've tested sigmas 16-50, tokinas 16-50, canons 17-55, and canon 17-40... sigma and tokina were surprisingly horrid in my copies I tested at the camera store... Soft Soft Soft.  the 17-55 was very nice, sharp, and had nice features, however with construction, color, etc... I dont know, for me, I was left wanting a tad more even tho I couldn't quite put my finger on it.  For $300 cheaper, the 17-40 had the stronger body, less features, provided sharp, consistent images, and got even sharper when I moved from the 50D to the 7D... (the 50D, to me was way too soft of a camera)... Yeah if canon came out tomorrow with a 17-40 IS mark II or whatever then I'd be the first to sell my lens to pick up the new one, however i dont in any way regret my decision to go with my 17-40. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, Canon 85 1.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2011, 12:26:06 PM »
Hello everyone,


I mainly shoot wildlife and landscape.
Price isn't really so much of an issue.


If it were me, I'd upgrade to a 7D (faster autofocus, good IQ) or the  5D MKII (superior IQ and mega file size)

Even if something new gets announced, you'll still have a great back-up body.

From there you only need 4 lenses:

1 wide
1 normal
1 tele
1 super tele.

So, if one of your current lenses under-performs on your new body, toss it and get an adequate replacement.

aldvan

  • Guest
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2011, 01:58:34 PM »
If price is not a big issue, but future developments are, I would be very careful to buy just EF lenses, instead of EF-S. When I switched, time ago, to a FF system, I had to sell all my EF-S lenses, leaving on the ground a lot of maoney. So, my strong advice is to bite the bullet and go just for EF or, better, for L series. It will be easier to improve the camera section, when you will be confident in your lenses, as many stated before me.

Second point. Although  a reasonable advice is to go for a 'general purpose' lens as a 24-105 zoom or equivalent, I suggest a "less than reasonable" choice. If you haven't  a specific or professional reason to take pictures, going around with a 'special' lens, as a big telephoto, a macro or a superwide angle, introduce you to a world of excellent and unexpected chances of beautiful photo. o, my advice is to be a little brave and forget the reasonable choice...

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2011, 03:58:38 PM »

Second point. Although  a reasonable advice is to go for a 'general purpose' lens as a 24-105 zoom or equivalent, I suggest a "less than reasonable" choice. If you haven't  a specific or professional reason to take pictures, going around with a 'special' lens, as a big telephoto, a macro or a superwide angle, introduce you to a world of excellent and unexpected chances of beautiful photo. o, my advice is to be a little brave and forget the reasonable choice...

I agree 100%.  Before I got my 400 2.8 I used to look for things to shoot. Now I KNOW what I'm shooting and travel every weekend to do it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2011, 03:58:38 PM »

aldvan

  • Guest
Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2011, 06:17:05 PM »

Second point. Although  a reasonable advice is to go for a 'general purpose' lens as a 24-105 zoom or equivalent, I suggest a "less than reasonable" choice. If you haven't  a specific or professional reason to take pictures, going around with a 'special' lens, as a big telephoto, a macro or a superwide angle, introduce you to a world of excellent and unexpected chances of beautiful photo. o, my advice is to be a little brave and forget the reasonable choice...

I agree 100%.  Before I got my 400 2.8 I used to look for things to shoot. Now I KNOW what I'm shooting and travel every weekend to do it.

That's the point! With a 'reasonable' lens you go around just taking pictures, with a 'special' one you are obliged to see things from a new point of view. Obviously, the border line between bad taste and 'new vision' is definitely subtle... Abusing of a 'special' lens is one of the commonest amateur's sin...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: New lens or body?
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2011, 06:17:05 PM »