17-40l!!!

[97TurboDSM]

Well I seriously need a lens for my camera (Canon 30D) and I'm considering a used 17-40L f/4. any of you canon folk have opinions, or personal experience rather, with this lens? seems like a decent lens but not sure if im gonna want something with a tad more range. this will be the only lens i pick up for a little while and just dont want to make a decision i'll regret.

[YellowMSP]

i have the same body and have used my brothers(bornfromjets on here) 17-40L and its a great lens. Wide enough to get good landscapes and a little distortion shooting cars close and of course you get the great color and sharpness from the L glass. i have the canon 10-22, 24-70L, 70-200L, and the 50mm and they are all great choices. the 50mm is just a lens to have because its less than $100 and f1.8 is fun to play with esp in low light when its needed. if you're in west chester u can swing by and try any of them out if you wanted

[97TurboDSM]

i will be in west chester in the next couple weeks to move out of my apt so i might take you up on that. i think i want to make a decision before then though. the 70-200 is another one i was thinking about. im just being indecisive right now.

[97TurboDSM]

ok its either the 17-40L f/4 or the 70-200L f/4. I'd rather have the 2.8L IS USM in both but im not shelling out for that right now. which would everyone use as more of an everyday lens?

[BlackTypeR]

I have a 70-200 f/2.8L and it's on my camera 90% of the time. I absolutely love that lens. So I would definately pick the 70-200 f/4L over the 17-40L.

[97TurboDSM]

amazon has new ones for $597 so i might scoop it up..its the f4 non IS of course but for that it seems like a good deal.

[garrettej8]

I have a 17-40 and it hasn't left my camera since I got it. I love it. I really would like a 70-200L to replace my crappy sigma 70-300. I say go with the 17-40 because it's a great walk-around lens and you can always crop pictures and still get great quality. its sharpness isn't 24-70 quality but it's definitely better than a lot of its competing lenses.

[BlackTypeR]

Either way, you can't go wrong with L glass :thumbup:

[97TurboDSM]

well now you got me thinking bout the damn 24-70 cause of the sharpness. how wide will it be wide open(the 24-70)? ugh decisions, decisions.

[i like rice]

Depends on your shooting style. If you have the space to maneuver and you want compression, the telephoto lens is the way to go. If you shoot at the wide angle more often, then a wide angle lens is the way to go.

[grimm]

it's really up to what you need now. I have a 70-200L and I use on occasion. I do more photography for work and that usually requires a wide angle lens. So for me, my 10-22mm or 24-85mm are on my camera most of the time. Down the line you can always pick up the other lens. But which will you use more now.

[97TurboDSM]

i havent been shooting for months because i havent had a lens so this will really be something to get me started again. i might go with the 70-200L so i can try and shoot some of my brothers soccer games, but i like the idea of a wide walk around lens to shoot cars and such. torn right now lol

[grimm]

the 70-200 is a great lens. (you could try and save a few $ and not get the IS version) and with that savings you can be on your way to getting the 17-40L. I just ordered up the 50mm 1.8. been looking at it for a few months, and heard nothing but great reviews. so for $85 you can't go wrong. Sooo... maybe even thats a good deal, get the 70-200L and the 50mm 1.8 and then you have a great action lens, and a decent portrait lens.

[97TurboDSM]

not a bad idea there. gonna do some shopping and maybe get one on the way tonight. i'll update when i make up my mind. i'm worse than a woman

[97TurboDSM]

well i decided on the 17-40L now i need to find one at a decent price

[i like rice]

May 11th, Canon is announcing several rebates. It'll be $50 off for the 17 40 4.0L

[97TurboDSM]

thanks buddy. i'm close to closin the deal on a few for about $550 used. so if that doesnt work in the next few days then $50 it'll be.

[TROLL]

of course i dont have experience with the canon side of things, but the focal lengths you use most really depend on the types of things you shoot and your own style... and thats the kind of thing you just have to learn by doing. over time you'll realize what you wish you had, and you'll also see what you have that really doesnt get used. with that said i think both of those lenses are great to have in your bag, and eventually you could work toward owning both.
i know for myself, i probably use my wide angle a lot more often... but i do love having the long lens for when its needed.

[97TurboDSM]

i decided that i won't necessarily need a long lens until the end of summer/early fall when high school sports start up again. until then i'm gonna go with the 17-40 as i think it will suit me better as a walk around lens. when the time comes i'll pick up a longer lens and maybe by then i'll shell out for the 70-200 2.8L IS. now looking for the best deal i can find lol.

[TROLL]

i think thats a good move... my 80-200 is essential for sports and racing too, but otherwise it stays in the bag a lot. i think you'll find that the 17-40 is your 'money lens'... that its on your camera a lot and a lot of your best photos will be taken with it.

[97TurboDSM]

i agree with that as well. it took some doing to convince myself of this but I think this will be the best route. I kinda wish I could man up and get the 2.8L IS but the advantages don't seem to really be sticking out at me, so the 4L will have to suffice.

[TROLL]

well the 2.8 would be nice for indoors particularly, but the IS isnt all that beneficial IMO on a wide lense where camera shake is much less of an issue.
i'm not sure of the price difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8, but its probably pretty substantial and if you dont know that you need the 2.8 (like if you do a lot of indoor available light shooting), then i think you'll be fine with what you're getting.

[97TurboDSM]

yea the price difference is quite substantial, and for what i'm doing I dont think low light situations are going to be a huge deal so I cant justify the slight advantages for that price at that focal length. im so anxious to get a lens, i might buy brand new but i'd rather try and save $150 and buy used.

[i like rice]

used prices:
70 200 2.8 ~ $800
70 200 4.0 ~ $500
70 200 2.8 IS ~ $1400

Not sure on the 4.0L IS

[YellowMSP]

i'll be up in west chester til sunday then i'm heading to the beach for the summer so i dont know if that works for u if u wanted to check out any of my lenses or my brothers 17-40 since he's here in wc too. but like other people said, u cant go wrong with any of the L lenses

[raceMpower95]

i'll be up in west chester til sunday then i'm heading to the beach for the summer so i dont know if that works for u if u wanted to check out any of my lenses or my brothers 17-40 since he's here in wc too. but like other people said, u cant go wrong with any of the L lenses

I am in Langhorne or Philadelphia all the time, so if you're near either place you can try both lenses. I HIGHLY recommend both the 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L. I have both of them and I love them. Believe it or not, the 70-200 f/4L is actually sharper than the 2.8 version. It is also a lot lighter so it's great for hand holding portrait shoots or whatever else. I do all of my shooting with the 17-40 and the 70-200 and I have been very pleased with them.

I just got back from a huge photo convention down at Cape May. These are some shots I got down there:

With the 17-40 f/4L on my 40D:
http://blankmediagroup.com/images/Dave/mars_08/splash_wide_1_1024.jpg

With the 70-200 f/4L on my 20D:
http://blankmediagroup.com/images/Dave/mars_08/red_sky_1_1024.jpg

Some car shots for comparison since that's what a lot of people shoot on here:

With the 17-40 f/4L on my 40D:
http://hotfirestudios.com/pictures2/DavesStuff/Blown%20Euroz_'08/bottom_left_scale_small.jpg

With the 70-200 f/4L on my 40D:
http://hotfirestudios.com/pictures2/DavesStuff/Blown%20Euroz_'08/bottom_right_road_small.jpg


I hope those help. Like I said, I'm not sure where you're from, but I'd be happy to meet up and let you try the lenses out so you can make a decision. Also, if you're local, check out Allen's Camera on New Falls Road. They always have a huge selection of used equipment and great prices, too. I know that YellowMSP, BornFromJets, and myself have all found great deals there on our stuff.

[97TurboDSM]

Thanks for the help everyone. Right now I'm actually in Lancaster so I'm kinda far from west chester and philly. I have a few options on POTN for 17-40 f/4L's so we'll see what happens but taking a trip to Allen's doesnt seem like a bad idea. I'm gonna have to find out how late they're open and how far away they are from me.

[i like rice]

I HIGHLY recommend both the 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L. I have both of them and I love them. Believe it or not, the 70-200 f/4L is actually sharper than the 2.8 version. It is also a lot lighter so it's great for hand holding portrait shoots or whatever else.

Both are good lenses to start with, but most will eventually upgrade to a faster lens.

Yeah, the 4.0 non IS is sharper but only when you're pixel peeping and printing 30 x 45" prints. One additional f-stop advantage, more background blur, plus 2 f/stops from the IS is valuable for certain situations, situations where the 4.0 would have to use 3200 ISO when the 2.8 IS can use ISO 400.

[97TurboDSM]

trust me. right now, a two stop advantage is not going to make me shell out extra money. this is going to be a lens for me to mess around with and get me back on my feet shooting again. there will be plenty of time for me to upgrade, whether it be selling this for a faster IS version or going a completely different route.

[i like rice]

http://www.thecameracorner.com/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/spring-program-2.jpg

[97TurboDSM]

i wish i could wait a week. but i want my lens for the show in york next weekend.

[TROLL]

where are you buying it? if its a local shop ask them if they'll post date the receipt for ya :wink:

[97TurboDSM]

right now i have one lined up on POTN. buying used will save me another $75 or so on top of that rebate so I figure why the hell not. if it turns out to be a busted up lens..lesson learned. seems as though lots of people buy used so I think I can handle a used lens.

[howielong]

Personally if all you are saving is $75 over a new lens with the rebate, I would go for the new lens. Just to have the piece of mind that it isn't a dud. Especially with the type of cash we all throw around for our lenses. I personally rather spend more on a new lens and have the felling that nothing is wrong with it, and the warranty's is always nice. But thats me, so good luck either way you go.

[97TurboDSM]

eh, the guy i bought from is a reputable guy over on POTN and the lens, from the pictures, looks to be in awesome shape. plus, i really cant wait another week to use the rebate. if its a dud, its a dud and i'll live with it. its just money. anyway, just paid for it and am having two day priority shipping so should be here thurs/friday. cant wait.

[97TurboDSM]

just got my lens today! its in amazing shape and i cant wait to get out and mess with it.