Just bought a 17-40L!

Trick

Trick

Trick

Soldato
Joined
7 Oct 2003
Posts
3,904
Location
York
I've been short of an ultra wide angle since I sold my old 450d and sigma 10-20. Even though landscapes are my thing I thought I'd be ok with the 24/70 on full frame but it turns our I need something wider!

Anyway, I've bought a second hand 17-40 just in time to take it to Austria in a week or two.

I can't wait! Photos to come once it's arrived. :)
 
I really rated the Sigma 10-20 when I was using a crop but since stepping up to ff I've pretty much made myself 'make do' with 24mm. Until recently that's been ok but I started hankering after something wider. I'm not bothered about uber wide angle such as a 12-24 or the expense of something like the f2.8 16-35, so the 17-40 seems to fit the bill nicely. And it's not expensive.
 
Here she is, as new condition

5428699442_163564c1c7_b.jpg
 
One of the cheapest L lens available and for a good reason. My 17-55mm image quality is much better than the 17-40mm but for a FF camera, I guess it will do.
 
I used to have the 17-40mm L, and whilst it was extremely well built, fast focusing and generally brilliant, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 I replaced it with was a little more flexible, if like a toy in build quality terms (and rather noisy when focusing). The lenses traded blows IQ wise with the Tamron being sharper at longer focal lengths at any given aperture IIRC, and the 17-40mm being a little better at the wide end.

My ultimate goal was one day to pick up a FF body and use it with the 17-40, but it just never happened. I still regret selling my 17-40, because it was really, really good for general landscape photography which I tended towards at the time. The 17-50 did grow on my, but the 17-40 was just a bit more special.

I guarantee that if you sell yours, you'll regret it somewhere down the line.
 
There was someone on these forums a few years ago that posted loads of this sort of photo with this lens. I forget their name, but I've not seen them posting here at all for years and it's only just dawned on me :D

They had some really nice long exposure stuff with this lens.
 
Mmmmm makes we wonder whether I should go for one of these instead on the Tam 17-50 I'm soving up for (+ work bonus hopefully)
 
feriso said:
Mmmmm makes we wonder whether I should go for one of these instead on the Tam 17-50 I'm soving up for (+ work bonus hopefully)
Click to expand...

Get a Tamron and pretend the 17-40 doesn't exist TBH. Yes, it's better in some situations, but the 17-40 is less flexible and a lot more expensive. The 17-40 is better built and has quieter focusing than the Tamron. That aside, the Tamron is still a brilliant lens to use and worth a punt. As I said above, I still miss my 17-40, but I don't think I'd ever buy another one if I had the chance (and still used Canon). I'd go for the Tamron again, or try to pick up a decent Sigma 18-50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom