Lens Advice

[lharvest]

Okay, I'm looking to round out my lens collection. Currently, I have the following:

Canon 40D
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Canon 85 f/1.8
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L

I want something below the 28 that I can use for the wide angle shots (obviously), but I'm not enthralled with the 10-22 as it doesn't seem like a great value to me (slower and expensive with good IQ).

I've been looking at used 17-40s and they seem like a good mix of quality/price/speed, but I don't know if the low end is low enough. As of now I don't take a lot of landscape shots, but I'd like to explore this aspect.

The 16-35s are more than I want to spend, but may be where I need to go.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

 

[compuwar]

Rent and see- though I'll caution that the first month or so with an ultra-wide won't be the same as the first year- I find these days that I rarely take landscapes with an ultra-wide, and then only when I don't have the option of taking multiple shots and stitching. About the only*time I find an ultrawide necessary is when I'm shooting architecture or real estate and I can't back up because of a road, tree or other obstruction.

Paul

 

[jampat]

For me, the 17-40 and 10-22 serve entirely different purposes.

The 17-40 is a beautiful lens that works well as a walk around lens and has minimal distortion.

The 10-22 is fun, it lets you capture entire rooms in one shot, it lets you warp people, but it does distort a lot (and trying to get a flash to give decent coverage is a challenge).

Why do you need the extra stop of speed? What are you shooting with your WA lens that needs the speed? If you are shooting landscapes, you will be stopped down and on a tripod, if you are shooting architecture, you will likely be stopped down and on a tripod. I am also reluctant to buy the 10-22, but you need to come up with a concrete reason why it won't work for you.

If you want fast and wide, the Tokina 11-16 is quite nice, but hard to find used (and obviously a much narrower focal length range).

As Paul said, renting (or borrowing if possible) is a great way to discover what you want or need before commiting.

 

[toxic]

if you don't know what you need then 1. you don't need a new lens, or 2. rent a lens so you know what you're looking for.

I would lose the 28-75 and get a 17-55.

 

[lharvest]

if you don't know what you need then 1. you don't need a new lens

Good point...and I'm sure my wife agrees with you.

Good advice from all.

 

[HBOC]

i have a 40D + 17-40L combo. Unfortunately my MBP is at apple to have a new keyboard installed (??), but i will post some results of the combo.

 

[gnd]

I too would suggest 17-55mm f/2.8.
I think 17-40 and 17-55 are quite different even though they seem to cover the same focal lengths. 17-40 is a full frame lens and as such is an ultra wide zoom lens. 17-55 is an APS-C lens and is a normal zoom lens. It has a lot less distortion compared to 17-40, is one stop faster and has IS. If you're on APS-C then I think 17-55 is the way to go.
It will also replace the Tamron which you can then sell and get yourself a 70-200mm f/4 (IS) as a replacement. That would have you pretty much covered.
Or alternatively, if you feel there would be too much overlap with your 100-400 you could get one of the third party APS-C tele f/2.8 zooms, something like Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 ...

 

[HBOC]

I too would suggest 17-55mm f/2.8.
I think 17-40 and 17-55 are quite different even though they seem to cover the same focal lengths. 17-40 is a full frame lens and as such is an ultra wide zoom lens. 17-55 is an APS-C lens and is a normal zoom lens. It has a lot less distortion compared to 17-40, is one stop faster and has IS. If you're on APS-C then I think 17-55 is the way to go.
It will also replace the Tamron which you can then sell and get yourself a 70-200mm f/4 (IS) as a replacement. That would have you pretty much covered.
Or alternatively, if you feel there would be too much overlap with your 100-400 you could get one of the third party APS-C tele f/2.8 zooms, something like Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 ...

?

The 17-40 is going to have the same focal range as the 17-55, until 40mm obviously. The 17-55 is definitely made for the crop sensor, but the 17-40 will not be any wider than the 17-55.

 

[toxic]

?

The 17-40 is going to have the same focal range as the 17-55, until 40mm obviously. The 17-55 is definitely made for the crop sensor, but the 17-40 will not be any wider than the 17-55.

the 17-40 is an ultra-wide by design - just because it fits on a smaller sensor doesn't make it a standard zoom, or a telephoto zoom if the sensor is small enough.

ultra-wides are not designed to the same goals and specifications as standard zooms.

 

[VirtualRain]

I would lose the 28-75 and get a 17-55.

+1. The 17-55 f2.8 is optically excellent, fast, stabilized, and covers a very useful focal range.

 

[HBOC]

the 17-40 is an ultra-wide by design - just because it fits on a smaller sensor doesn't make it a standard zoom, or a telephoto zoom if the sensor is small enough.

ultra-wides are not designed to the same goals and specifications as standard zooms.

I understand that is an UWA on a film or FF camera. But what i am stating is that, at least on my 40D, it isn't as wide as my 10-22 was or my Sigma 10-20.

The 17-40L and 17-55 are apples and oranges. I am looking to upgrade, however, as it is not enough reach, and honestly, i don't need that wide. I would probably go 24-70L. I just need to decide if i want to buy the 5D and stick with the 17-40L for a bit, or sell the 17-40 and pay the difference for the 24-70L.

 

[HBOC]

Here is a shot i took several days ago.
40D + 17-40L

 

[gnd]

I understand that is an UWA on a film or FF camera. But what i am stating is that, at least on my 40D, it isn't as wide as my 10-22 was or my Sigma 10-20.

Of course it's not as wide, it's not meant to be ultra wide on a crop sensor. 10-22 or 10-20 are both meant to be ultra wide on a crop sensor.

The 17-40L and 17-55 are apples and oranges. I am looking to upgrade, however, as it is not enough reach, and honestly, i don't need that wide. I would probably go 24-70L. I just need to decide if i want to buy the 5D and stick with the 17-40L for a bit, or sell the 17-40 and pay the difference for the 24-70L.

5D + 17-40L means you have an ultra wide combination.
40D + 24-70L means you have normal to telephoto combination. 24-70 on APS-C starts almost exactly where 17-40 on 5D ends. 24mm on APS-C has a field of view of 38.5mm on FF.
These two options are apples and oranges.