opinions please - trading my 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM for 17-40L f4

Ghost in the Shell

Ghost in the Shell

Ghost in the Shell

Associate
Joined
11 Jun 2004
Posts
1,571
hi as above i have the very good general purpose canon 28-135 IS USM and have decided to trade it for a better wide angle lens (this is for my 10D)

id just like to know what people who use th 17-40L regularly think of it and what it will give the opportunity of shooting better over the 28-135

i obviously know ill have a wider angle but lose some telephoto but what im trying to ask is what kind of pictures should i try to take with the 17-40L to show of its true potential. dont get me wrong i love my 28-135 dearly a very nice middle shoot most things lens but i love scenery shots and im hoping the 17-40L will offer me some superb landscape shots, if i could afford it id keep both but thats not possible due to finances :(

i will look into getting a sigma 75-300 or something in the L series sometime to get the telephoto capability back so i dont miss out so id like to have opinions on the benefits of holding a decent wide angle and saving for a decent telephoto as opposed to hanging onto my multipurpose 28-135

thanks for reading and replying all :)

peace
 
Hi

I used to have a 28-135 IS and I also have a 17-40L. The 28-135IS is a pretty average lens, it's very soft on the wide focal length (28-45mm) so you will defiantly notice a difference in your pictures.

The 17-40L doesn't have weaknesses; even at F4 it's very sharp. From my test it's get a tiny bit softer at 40mm but it's still very sharp.
 
I used my 28-135IS as my main lens until we went to New York last year where I bought a 17-40L. As soon as I got the 17-40 it went straight onto my 300D, and pretty much stayed there for the rest of the week only being swapped where IS or a longer zoom like my 75-300 was needed. For taking photo's in New York the extra width was really useful (I had been tempted by the 10-22 but passed on it for reasons not worth going into here) and the quality of the 17-40L was clear in use.

Saying that, there were occassions where the IS allowed me to take photo's I'd have needed a tripod for otherwise, but if I'd only been able to have one lens with me I'd have chosen the 17-40L.

There are some samples on my site.

New York - Mainly 17-40L, some 28-135IS & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/846908

Barcelona - Mainly 28-135IS, some 18-55 EF-S & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/465780

Rome - Mainly 28-135IS, some 18-55 EF-S & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/467628
 
stu.artd said:
I used my 28-135IS as my main lens until we went to New York last year where I bought a 17-40L. As soon as I got the 17-40 it went straight onto my 300D, and pretty much stayed there for the rest of the week only being swapped where IS or a longer zoom like my 75-300 was needed. For taking photo's in New York the extra width was really useful (I had been tempted by the 10-22 but passed on it for reasons not worth going into here) and the quality of the 17-40L was clear in use.

Saying that, there were occassions where the IS allowed me to take photo's I'd have needed a tripod for otherwise, but if I'd only been able to have one lens with me I'd have chosen the 17-40L.

There are some samples on my site.

New York - Mainly 17-40L, some 28-135IS & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/846908

Barcelona - Mainly 28-135IS, some 18-55 EF-S & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/465780

Rome - Mainly 28-135IS, some 18-55 EF-S & Canon 75-300
http://stuartd.smugmug.com/gallery/467628
Click to expand...

thanks stu very helpful. ihave a slik af2100 tripod head on the way and will get a tripod base soon so im happy to take pics with that - i am assuming its more for use when light becomes and issue more than anything else but say if you think the 17-40 has issues when not used with a tripod all the time as id like to hear it even if my decision is made
 
Last edited:
undilutedethics said:
thanks stu very helpful. ihave a silka tripod head on the way and will get a tripod base soon so im happy to take pics with that - i am assuming its more for use when light becomes and issue more than anything else but say if you think the 17-40 has issues when not used with a tripod all the time as id like to hear it even if my decision is made
Click to expand...

I didn't use a tripod with my 17-40L once, and would day it's only a requirement in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom