Should I get a Canon 17-40 L for my 5D ?

J

jcvalenti

Member
Help ! I'm leaving for Napa Valley next week for anniversary trip with the wife, and hope to be photographing some vineyards and some state parks. It's the first real test for my relatively new 5D. I'm hoping to get some decent snaps to blow up and frame on the wall in my wine themed living room.

I was checking in to renting a 17-40 L, but since a rental comes out to slightly more than 10% of the purchase price, and used 17-40's are going for only 20% off purchase price, I'm wondering if buying it isn't a better option. So my question is this - do you all think the 17-40 is a useful addition to my 5D for taking outdoor landscape shots ?

I've already got a 5D with 24-105 f/4 IS, a 70-200 f/4 and a 50 f/1.4. If the 17-40 won't give me scenic range much beyond my 24-105, I've definately got other things I could spend the money on ... but if it is likely to give me a perspective far beyond the 24-105 when trying to convey the "openess" of the vineyards and forests, then I'll bite the bullet and invest the money.

I know I've seen some nice results with the 17-40 on this forum (from Tim and Ron in particular), so I guess my question isn't "is it a nice piece of glass" but "if you own both the 24-105 and the 17-40, do you find yourself using both, or does the 24-105 cover the vast majority of the situations".

Your thoughts ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i have that lens, along with the others that you have. it's a beauty and razor sharp. that extra 7mm you get on the wide end really goes a long way. there have been comparisons that show that a multiplicative effect on focal length in which 2x is not double x when you are talking focal length in millimeters. ie. 200mm is not double 100mm but many more times because there is an exponential factor worked in. i will try to find a link to what i am talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yup, sure is...



Note: Let’s look at what kind of magnification we can expect with such a huge lens. If we assume the ubiquitous 50mm lens as providing a normal Field of View (FOV) for 35mm sized cameras, then the 600mm gives you 12 times the magnification right? Wrong! It magnifies what you see by 144 times—12 multiplied by 12. While this is counter to intuition let me give you a simple explanation. If you photograph an image with a lens combination but don’t like the FOV, you can easily use one of those tele-converters to get closer without moving your feet. If you compare the FOV without a 2x converter and then with a tele-converter, you’ll see the FOV of the lens with 2x converter occupies 1/4 the view of the original configuration without the converter. That means we got 4 times the magnification with only a 2x converter. The same thing is happening between 50mm and 600mm. While the long lens is 12 times the focal length of the normal, it provides 144 times the magnification. That’s a big number and, yes, a big number means faraway subjects will be a lot closer.

As a comparison, a 500mm lens is 10 times the focal length of a normal 50mm lens and only 100 millimeters less than a 600mm. While 100 millimeters doesn’t seem like much, the magnification of the 600mm lens is 44% more than the 500mm. If you’re pining for more magnification, every millimeter is important. A 44% increase in magnification will make your images look different. That 100 millimeters is significant if you are all about getting closer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's interesting information. I never realized that the difference between 50mm and 600mm was not just 12.

Tim, you should post that info in the Dictionary of Photography Terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am not so sure i understand it completely either... it seems that the difference in focal length is an exponential factor... so 3x zoom is really 9x, 4x is 16x, etc. maybe someone can find a link to an article or explain this somehow. now with full frame, the difference between the 70-200 that i have and the 100-400 that i want is much more appealing... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, my brain hurts now ... but I think I get the gist. The 17 mm is wider than you think, and worthwhile. I went ahead and ordered it. But I swear ... this is the last new camera thing I buy this year. I'm Serious !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have the 17-40, but I haven't used it much with my 5D. When I had my 10D and 20D I used it a lot, and it is an exceptionally sharp lens for that kind of camera.
 
just got back late last night from ohio, so this is a little late reply, i have had the 17-40 since just after it became available, i've always liked it's quality, i just did not use it much on the crop cameras after i got the 10-22, to get real wide fov
but go to my gallery via the below link, go to the jedediah hawkins house gallery, all of those were taken in golden sunlight, right before dusk using the 5d and the 17-40, i think it's a great landscape combo
 
Thanks, Gary. Nice shots.

I got the lens on Friday - hope to shoot with it tomorrow at the pumpkin patch. I'm bringing the 24-105 as well to do some comparison shots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why yes. Yes I did miss the rebate. By 1 day. Thanks for bringing it up ! I'm very happy about that fact.

It was good to be reminded why I hate Canon's rebate scheme so much - always makes you feel penalized for pulling the trigger on any purchase. The only good news is they didn't come out with some massive 5D rebate just a few months after I bought in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah that rebate is going on behind the scenes right now. Have you seen B&H's price lately? And NO rebate?

I seriously think the 5D MkII and the 3D are both coming at PMA. If not sooner, like a day or two BEFORE the D300 and D3 arrive at stores. If they arrive on time.

Now that Canon has the Mk3 issues worked out.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"rlongenbach" said:
I seriously think the 5D MkII and the 3D are both coming at PMA. If not sooner, like a day or two BEFORE the D300 and D3 arrive at stores. If they arrive on time.
Click to expand...

If Canon was smart (and I'm not saying that they are), they would make their new camera announcements next month, before Christmas. I think the new Nikons took them by surprise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I noticed the price drop. Not as significant as I feared when I bought - the kit is only a couple hundred cheaper than when I bought a few months ago. That I can take. If it was $800 - 900 less, I'd have freaked out.

As far as an early announcement, I agree both that a late November announcement would be best AND that Canon is too stupid to do that. I love their gear, but their marketing department is light years behind Nikon's. With Sony coming into the DSLR arena and Nikon making huge strides in all segments, Canon needs to hit back hard. I wonder if they will.

In other news, I did my first shoot with the 17-40 at the pumpkin patch a few days back. Got some amazing shots. I was thrilled to be shooting wide open on a full frame. Totally bizzare perspectives on some of my shots. Stuff I never would have dreamed of seeing with the crop sensor. I'll post a few once I get back from my Napa trip next week so I can start learning how the heck to shoot wide !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I think Canon probably was a little surprised that Nikon is making their own sensors now. CMOS to boot! Remember back when Canon went CMOS and everyone else went CCD? CCD is superior to CMOS debate? CCD provides less noise? And now which chip is ruling?

I was reading a thread about where Nikon is marketing vs. Canon, and Canon still has a lot of catching up to do with the low-end market, but Nikon's D40 is a departure from the other Nikons as it only takes SD, and can't use the older lenses.

But Canon has had a grasp on the market niche with the 5D. Nikon's closest competitor to it is either 1.5 crop or the D3 full frame at more than twice the price. They could easily release the same 12mp chip with the new microlenses/pixel width to allow for higher ISOs, increase the FPS (but not more than the 40D), and lower the price to match the D300. And then put the old 1DsMkII 16 mp chip in the "new" 5D (3D or whatever), and price it around $2500-$3000.

Sony....well....Sony may have bitten off more than they can chew. I'm not sure the Alpha series is going to make it. We'll see. Sony has had lemons in the past, and they should be focusing on the TV/DVD market. Sony barely got 6% of the market, and Olympus is gunning for third.... Canon and Nikon are responsible for almost 80% of the digital camera sales. And it's something like this:

P&S: Canon
Low end dSLR: Nikon
Mid dSLR: Nikon
High dSLR: Canon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"rlongenbach" said:
Sony....well....Sony may have bitten off more than they can chew. I'm not sure the Alpha series is going to make it. We'll see. Sony has had lemons in the past, and they should be focusing on the TV/DVD market. Sony barely got 6% of the market, and Olympus is gunning for third.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I wish Sony would go back to what they do best (camera-wise): small P&S cameras and mid-level "bridge" cameras. Obviously, they think they can make money by doing what they're doing, but as you say, "we'll see".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top