Canon 17-40 L - recommended?

Psilonaught · 9 May 2006 at 13:45

Leigh said:
Just to add confusion... i have the Sigma 10-20 on my 350D and i would say that its not a landscape lens. I find it too wide TBH and its more suited to architecture.

Dont get me wrong i absolutely love the lens and have had some fantastic photos with it and wouldnt be without it.

I think that's a very valid point - I used to have a 17-85mm Canon and 17mm was actually more than wide enough for me on my 350D, the only reason i got rid of it was because it was nasty at 17mm, realy soft and full of distortion.

Was looking in Adorama at they are selling the 17-40 L for less than the 10-22mm :eek:

Am tempted to buy that instead to go with my 24-105 L. I can always sell it well I eventually get a 5D FF

Leigh · 9 May 2006 at 15:54

Psilonaught said:
I think that's a very valid point - I used to have a 17-85mm Canon and 17mm was actually more than wide enough for me on my 350D, the only reason i got rid of it was because it was nasty at 17mm, realy soft and full of distortion.

Was looking in Adorama at they are selling the 17-40 L for less than the 10-22mm

Am tempted to buy that instead to go with my 24-105 L. I can always sell it well I eventually get a 5D FF

Sorry to hijack the thread but how do you find the 24-105L? as thats next on my list of must haves!

Psilonaught · 9 May 2006 at 16:01

Leigh said:
Sorry to hijack the thread but how do you find the 24-105L? as thats next on my list of must haves!

exceptional. very very sharp and detailed, plus the IS works down to 1/10 quite happily.

Leigh · 9 May 2006 at 16:04

Psilonaught said:
exceptional. very very sharp and detailed, plus the IS works down to 1/10 quite happily.

Thanks, seems to be the general opinion and good to know from sombody on a trusted site

Just need to get my hands on one now

cyKey · 9 May 2006 at 16:28

Leigh said:
Just to add confusion... i have the Sigma 10-20 on my 350D and i would say that its not a landscape lens. I find it too wide TBH and its more suited to architecture.

Dont get me wrong i absolutely love the lens and have had some fantastic photos with it and wouldnt be without it.

More suited to architecture, with its extreme distortion? I'd say its more of a landscape lens. It can be used for architecture but you have to be careful.

Leigh · 10 May 2006 at 08:55

cyKey said:
More suited to architecture, with its extreme distortion? I'd say its more of a landscape lens. It can be used for architecture but you have to be careful.

Yes, but then i really like the distortion effect that i get with the lens.

Like this;

Dont get me wrong i have used it as a landscape lens and got some great results, its just that i find the landscape i am photographing ends up with the subject matter too far away due to the nature of the lens.