canon 17-40 f/4 L - to buy or not to buy?

[MrJones]

Hi all,
I've recently upgraded my lens collection with two beautiful lenses which I'm inlove with:
1. canon 70-200 f/4 IS
2. canon 24-105 f/4 IS

I shoot with 40D, meaning a crop body. since we're talking crop - the 24mm is not quite there yet for group photos and general wide lens photography. that's why I'm thinking of purchasing the last peice in the chain - the canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
I do own the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8.

do you think it's a good lens? I have a very good experiance with the L series but will it really make a difference from the kit? (I know the answer is yes, but how big a difference?)

I shoot mostly portraits and events every now and then.

thanks
Ori

[inkista]

Ah. The f/4L Zoom Trinity. Yeah, the 17-40 would definitely finish you off, but there's one other candidate you might want to consider, and that's the EF-S 10-22.

While it's not L glass, it is an ultrawide, and will give you far more effective FoV than the 17-40 will, for roughly the same price tag. The trick here is knowing where your "breakover" point is (i.e., where it's convenient to swap lenses). If 24mm is a good breakover point, then the 10-22 is probably just the ticket. If, however, you shoot a lot in the 20-30 range, then the 17-40 is going to be much more convenient for you. Obviously, if you plan on going full frame any time soon, the 10-22 is out, but in the meantime, it's a better fit on a crop body.

Essentially, if you stop to think about it, the 10-22 does on a crop body what the 16-35 and 17-40 do on a full frame.

For portraits, though, you may want to consider getting a fast prime.

[MrJones]

Originally Posted by inkista

Ah. The f/4L Zoom Trinity. Yeah, the 17-40 would definitely finish you off, but there's one other candidate you might want to consider, and that's the EF-S 10-22.

While it's not L glass, it is an ultrawide, and will give you far more effective FoV than the 17-40 will, for roughly the same price tag. The trick here is knowing where your "breakover" point is (i.e., where it's convenient to swap lenses). If 24mm is a good breakover point, then the 10-22 is probably just the ticket. If, however, you shoot a lot in the 20-30 range, then the 17-40 is going to be much more convenient for you. Obviously, if you plan on going full frame any time soon, the 10-22 is out, but in the meantime, it's a better fit on a crop body.

Essentially, if you stop to think about it, the 10-22 does on a crop body what the 16-35 and 17-40 do on a full frame.

For portraits, though, you may want to consider getting a fast prime.

Thanks Inkista,
I am thinking on going full frame, but that will happen on a year or two (budget issues).
since I'm going for people and events and less for landscapes - I think the breakover point will better be around 40 - am I right?

[RichardTaylor]

If you are shooting events, especially in reasonable light (for F4 lenses), think two bodies. No messing around changing lenses at critical times.

If landscapes or very wide are not a priority, on 40D, I would put the money towards the full frame camera.
The 24-105 on will cover all the general shots & groups (it is fairly wide on a 5D) and your 70-200 on the 40D is great for the head shots.

You can go from this. (99mm on a 5D)


to this, just by bringing the other camera up to your eye (140mm on a 40D)


Both examples were taken during a parade.
However the same principals apply at citizenship ceremonies etc.

I do own a 12-24 for my crop bodies however it is mostly used for architecture, street & landscapes

[MrJones]

thanks Richard, off to saving more money for the much expensive 5d