Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Ef 17-40 f4L USM

profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
if you own one how do you like it, is it fast enough in low light or do you wish you sprung the extra dough for the 16-35 f2.8?
Feb 12 2009 10:47AM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
your spending that much already. save and get the 16-35 2.8. i have used it, its soo sick. what camera do you have? on a 1/6th sensor is pretty good, but on a full frame is sooo sick!!!
Feb 12 2009 10:58AM
0 0
profile picture
mnjib
Posts: 5592 - Karma: 362
I own the 17-40 and have shot extensively with the 16-35 as well. I have had little issues with the af in low light with the 17-40. the chromatic abrasion is rather noticeable in some lighting situations but programs like lightroom have really good tools for fixing that. All in all I have been satisfied with the 17-40 and personally would'nt spend the extera money on the 16-35.
Feb 12 2009 11:45AM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
i shoot with a rebel xt i have a kit lens and a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 i need to expand a bit and what better than an expencive L series lens
Feb 12 2009 1:29PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
go for the 16-35
Feb 12 2009 4:33PM
0 0
profile picture
niels043
Posts: 814 - Karma: 184
tough call the 16-35 is almost twice as much that could be another nice lens
Feb 12 2009 4:50PM
0 0
profile picture
thegoat
Posts: 518 - Karma: 11
I see little reason to spend an twice the cost.

I have had no problems using the 17-40 4,  add in that it is slightly smaller and wider and I am set.


I am happy I decided to get it rather then save up another $700 for the 2.8. At that wide I really don't need the 2.8 anyway. maybe @ a concert or something, but I rarely shoot those.  The 4 is plenty fast for me. 


Feb 12 2009 10:15PM
0 0
profile picture
*Fujative*
Posts: 8554 - Karma: 183
ya but its could always be a good thing just to have the 2.8 just incase.

you only really need to buy a lens like that once, i would still say suck it up and get 2.8.
Feb 15 2009 1:51PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)