Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: blangton on March 26, 2004, 04:53:46 pm
-
You will find the lens to be a quite a bit larger than the stock 18-55mm and heavier. However, you will also find that it is MUCH sharper, smoother, easier to focus (full-time manual focusing + very fast AF) and the build quality is second to none.
The 18-55mm is a great, general purpose, low cost lens that produces very acceptable images. But, if you want better quality, immediate AF and a long lasting, durable investment, the 17-40mm is a very good choice.
Good luck,
Bill
-
is it [the 17-40] good for carrying around on the street?
It is a matter of one's style of course, but its telephoto limit of 40mm gives the field of view of only about 62mm in 35mm format, and I at least fairly often want more telephoto reach than that in walk-around photography. The 18-55 alternative reaches the equivalent of about 85mm, but of course the 17-40 has the compensating quality advantages mentioned above.
-
I have both the kit lens and the 17-40. While the kit is lighter, the 17-40 is by no means a heavy or bulky lens. This is the only lens I use and it performs excellent on my 300D. It is sharp and delivers good color. There were certain old master street photographer who used a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera for the impact that focal length gives you. You can work in close and sort of "shoot from the hip". The 17-40 gives you a very versital range that includes that 35. I find myself shooting at full wide 17 quite often and really use the entire range. I think you will be quite pleased with this lens.
It also focuses to about 10 inches.
-
I am thinking to get a 17-40 F4.0 L for my 300D. But I wanna know is L lens a lot better than normal Canon lens in digital SLR? I didn't hold it on hands. So can you guys tell me is it good for carrying around on the street? Sometimes I shoot portrait, should I get it for that purpose?
Thanks!
-
What blangton said plus:
I wouldn't recomend the 17-40L for portraits unless you want to get real cose in your subject's face. On the 300D the 17-40 acts as a 22.7-64mm (40*1.6=64) in terms of FOV.
I would recomend at least a 50mm (80mm equivalent) lens on that camera for portraits.
-
I do lots of walking around with a 16-35 on a 10D, so the 17-40 should do you well on a 300D. Especially if you like architecture and wide view landscapes. Put an 85 f1.8 in your pocket (it's that small) for tele use.
Dan