My 24-105 is not quite wide enough for my 1DmkIIn so I pulled the trigger on the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. So far I am happy with how sharp this lens is.:cool:
Attachment 493
Printable View
My 24-105 is not quite wide enough for my 1DmkIIn so I pulled the trigger on the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. So far I am happy with how sharp this lens is.:cool:
Attachment 493
Nice one - I bought the 17-40 a few months back to take on holidays with me and I used it quite a bit. It's a really convenient lens due to its small size and has pretty good IQ. Pretty good bang for buck.
Ideally I'd love the 14mm f/2.8 but the $$$ are just a bit out of reach. I'd probably go the TS-E 17mm f/4L for that price as it has a few more creative uses than just an ultrawide angle prime.
Congratulations Mark. I have been looking at that one for a while. I would like the 16-35, but the 17-40 makes more sense (price wise) for what I shoot.
Apart from the wider aperture - there's very little difference between the two. At least nothing for me that justifies the price difference. f/2.8 would be handy for night shots but I'm happy enough just to bump up the ISO if I want a shorter exposure time.
Congrats, Mark!
I, too, recently succumbed to another bout of Lens Lust.
I hate it when words come back to bite you in the butt. The Wayback Machine helpfully informed me that here on these forums, about 18 months ago, I stated:
Now, here I am, with an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS superzoom in my kit. Of course, my gear situation has changed a bit since then...added a 5DII, some primes and a UWA zoom (16-35 II).Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I got it in large part for an upcoming trip, to see family, trying to save space in the bag. I wasn't concerned about the size/weight - not really different from the 70-200mm II or 100-400mm. I was planning on bringing the 24-105mm and the 70-200mm, and this sort of combines them in one lens, freeing up room in the bag for two primes instead of one (35L and 135L will go).
I'm not too concerned about the slow/variable aperture - comparing to the 24-105mm f/4L IS, once you get to f/4, it's more of a challenge to get good OOF blur, and in indoor ambient light, I'm usually reaching for a Speedlite at f/4. To me there's a significant difference between f/2.8 (good OOF blur, can shoot indoor ambient at ISO 3200) and f/4 (insufficient OOF blur for most portraits, need a flash indoors). However, even though the relative difference in light/aperture is the same, IMO the difference between f/4 and f/5.6 has much less significance. So, in some ways this will replace my 24-105mm f/4L IS, and it's like trading 4mm at the wide end for nearly 200mm at the long end - worthwhile to me.
Initial results are that it's sharper than I was expecting, even at 200-300mm. The lens handles quite well (I am very comfortable with the 100-400mm). Overall, I'm pleased - this will make a nice outdoor walkaround lens, lighter than carrying two lenses and no swapping needed.
Congrats Mark...I hope you enjoy your new lens...Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
John... you really have to get a support buddy....
I have never read great reports about that lens, when you first hear about it of course it looks like a lens everyone should have. One size fits all.
And was it really that difficult to stick your 35mm L in a side pouch to cover wide, leave the 24-105 at home and go with your 70-200mm :p
There was one on Craigslist here not long ago, tempted, but just couldn't find a good reason I needed it. I will keep your reasoning in mind next time:)
I bought the 17-40mm a month ago..and I've taken a lot of landscape photos with it..the IQ's really good for the price..and plus it's weather sealed! Hope you enjoy your new lens, I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun with it! :)
Good for you Mark, hopefully we will be seeing some posts in the landscape thread.
John, there's no hope for you, but as Rick states your reasoning is sound and you've convinced me that you needed it. Congrats.
There might be something new arriving for me tomorrow, I hope. More news at eleven...., considering it's 2:00pm here that doesn't really make sense.
I see a lot of comments on the f4.0. With the IS I handhold available light in most churches when I am doing weddings at ISO 800 & 1600 and get great results. As for OOF blur at 105 f4, I am very pleased. I see a lot of comparing this to the 24-70 f2.8. I have not had the opportunity to compare the two myself but the comments imply that you can get better OOF with 70@2.8 than 105@f4.0. I am skeptical but am interested if someone can do a side by side comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Attachment 494
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Lens: EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Image Date: 2010-06-12 18:45:15 -0500
Focal Length: 105.0mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
ISO equiv: 160
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Spot
Flash Fired: Yes
Trust me, those thoughts all went through my head. IQ-wise, it's not too different from the 24-105mm - less distortion, actually, and similar sharpness across the range. A stop slower (it goes to f/5.6 so fast it might as well be a constant f/5.6). The main arguments against it are the size and weight, but as I said, I'm already used to those...Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I do view it mostly as a walkaround lens for trips out with the kids. The visit to family was more of an excuse...if I were going somewhere I'd never been (family lives where I grew up, and we go fairly often), I wouldn't compromise on the lenses.
@Steve, 'need' is probably too strong of a word...
Like other lenses I was not certain were optimal for my needs, I bought this one used. I've mentioned my personal rule before - not paying more than 70% of current retail price. In this case, I bought it used from CL just 3 days before the last rebates ended (the 28-300mm wan not one of the extended rebates), and the price of a new lens went up by $270. So, that means I should easily be able to re-sell the lens for what I paid, if not more... I view it as a long term, essentially free rental - it's a great way to test out a lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
@clemmb, I think you could get an idea of this from the dof calculator. At 10' the f2.8 70mm has a dof of 1.03 vs. the f4 105mm at .64. I think at equal distances you may be correct, however to get the exact same framing the f2.8 70mm at 10' would be equal to the f4 105mm at about 15'. At 15' the f4 105mm would have a dof of 1.46. So it may be correct the f2.8 70mm is better if you frame equally. Of course this doesn't allow for differences in the lens and other factors that contribute to good bokeh.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
;)I have used the same logic in my reasoning and it sure makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I think this is one of the advanced symptoms.