yet another Canon lens question

**3pin** · 06-04-2008, 02:15 PM

I saw the replies in the other recent threads, and have an inkling of what the response would be, but thought I'd throw out the question for more input.

I have a 30D and I’ve been shooting for a while with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Canon EF-S kit lens. It’s done ok, but I feel like I’m ready to step up to something better. I'm just generally not that pleased with the color or the sharpness of the images that I get on the 18-55.

I’ve primarily been looking at the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens as my go to. I’ve looked at the faster 16-35 f/2.8L too, but realistically I can’t spend the money on that (2x the cost). Obviously I’d love to have the greater wide-open ability of a 2.8, but is the 17-40 f/4L as a primary lens actually limiting, or fine for the skiing action and landscape stuff I shoot? Eventually I would probably look at the 70-200 f/4L to complement this lens, but the wide angle zoom would definitely be my day-to-day.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

A sample of some of my recent shots on the 18-55 for some stoke and an idea of what I normally shoot:

Lunch in the North Cascades.

Alpental powder day

Freezing rain at Mad River Glen

Scoping lines in the North Cascades

**andrewjesaitis** · 06-04-2008, 03:08 PM

Look at the Tamron 17-50mm. Its a great lens for a crop body, some test show that it is in fact sharper than the Canon 17-55 EF-s (even though this is probably a better overall lens because of its AF performance). If you aren't planning on getting a full frame anytime soon, there isn't a whole lot of reason to get one of the lenses you mentioned. Also, having a 2.8 lens is going to allow much better AF performance than a f/4 lens, not to mention better depth of field control and a sharpness sweet spot that is at a faster aperture.

**arild** · 06-04-2008, 04:49 PM

The 17-40 is a spectacular lens. Granted, you won´t get 2.8, but it is fairly sharp wide open, built rugged, and produces nice images if the user is any good.

**arild** · 06-04-2008, 04:53 PM

Oh, and it will be great for skiing photographing if the light´s alright. I mostly use f/5.6-f/8 when shooting skiing and snowboarding. Better photographers on here can tell you more, though.

**summit** · 06-04-2008, 05:14 PM

2.8 is the way to go for many reasons.

The extra stop will save you in action shooting as the light goes down. 2.8 gets you extra DoF to work with too.

2.8 let's you use your AF sensor to it's best capability. 2.8 will get you use of the cross sensor for faster and more reliable AF. The camera also autofocuses more accurately (I forget the numbers... I think it is 1/3 DoF for 2.8 versus 1 DoF for slower lenses).

2.8 lenses will also be sharper and much more contrasty at f/4 and f/5.6 (and usually at f/8 to some extent) than an f/4 lens.

**arild** · 06-04-2008, 05:36 PM

Yes, that much is true. Can´t deny the 17-40 is a great lens, though!

**summit** · 06-04-2008, 05:40 PM

I'll sell a 17-35mm f/2.8 L USM for about the same price as the 17-40.

**smalls** · 06-04-2008, 06:07 PM

This has been covered a few times.

Get the 2.8 in that zoom range, you won't regret it. Whatever lens that is depends on how many dollars you have. fwiw, I love my tamron 17-50/2.8.

**wendigo** · 06-05-2008, 12:33 PM

I've got a 30D and recently picked up the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens - it is a HUGE upgrade from the kit lens, and is now my everyday lens. Sure the 2.8 would be nice, but my pocketbook was happier with the 4.
I also have a 70-200 2.8 that is a nice complement (and makes me want more 2.8 glass).

**supermodel159** · 06-05-2008, 02:32 PM

On the crop get the EF-S 17-55 2.8. Shaper as any L and perfect for the 30d...plus is has IS, USM

**Damon** · 06-05-2008, 07:18 PM

I use a Tokina 12-24 F/4, and it's just as good as my 70-200 f/4 L in terms of sharpness, color, & contrast. Obviously it won't be as fast focusing as an USM, but it does pretty good. I'll admit I'm waiting for the 11-16 F/2.8 to start popping up for sale (used) though, it sounds like an awesome lens.

side note... ISO 1600 in the first pic?!

**3pin** · 06-05-2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Damon

side note... ISO 1600 in the first pic?!

Heh... yeah, I was a little hungover that morning after shooting a dark indoors slideshow the night before. A few shots later, I realized I was still on that ISO... pretty pissed I blew a couple shots like that though.

**Natedogg** · 06-07-2008, 09:48 AM

Fuck, you guys are making me want some 2.8 glass...

Wendigo, I was in the same boat--I love my 17-40L and the price was right. I actually liked it better on my film camera, but still a great lens.

Originally Posted by Summit

2.8 is the way to go for many reasons.

The extra stop will save you in action shooting as the light goes down. 2.8 gets you extra DoF to work with too.

2.8 let's you use your AF sensor to it's best capability. 2.8 will get you use of the cross sensor for faster and more reliable AF. The camera also autofocuses more accurately (I forget the numbers... I think it is 1/3 DoF for 2.8 versus 1 DoF for slower lenses).

2.8 lenses will also be sharper and much more contrasty at f/4 and f/5.6 (and usually at f/8 to some extent) than an f/4 lens.

I think this answers my question about these pics (sorry for the thread hijack)????

Originally Posted by Natedogg

I know this should really be asked in the photo forum, but any advice on shooting in the woods on a dark overcast day with lenses that only go to f/4? On many occasions today I had to crank the ISO to 1600, and I was still having to go to relatively slow shutter speeds (~1/250). Maybe I need to work on my panning technique for dark woods days?

**Deep Days** · 06-07-2008, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by aj_77

Look at the Tamron 17-50mm. Its a great lens for a crop body, some test show that it is in fact sharper than the Canon 17-55 EF-s (even though this is probably a better overall lens because of its AF performance). If you aren't planning on getting a full frame anytime soon, there isn't a whole lot of reason to get one of the lenses you mentioned. Also, having a 2.8 lens is going to allow much better AF performance than a f/4 lens, not to mention better depth of field control and a sharpness sweet spot that is at a faster aperture.

I have been very pleased with the same lens. Definitely notice more contrast, slightly more vibrant colors, and good sharpness as compared to my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (also not a bad lens and typically the one on my body when shooting skiing).

Obviously, an 85 mm equiv (or whatever it is) at the upper range isn't huge, but you still have good flexibility with some of the shots you take, and I have found it easier to shoot off of drops with this lens than the longer one. Definitely a good range to start with in my opinion (which probly ain't worth much).

Having f/2.8 has definitely saved me a few times, particularly since on my 20D (and I'm assuming your 30D), the noise level seems to jump quickly from 400 to 800 or 800 to 1600, and having that one extra stop tends to give me better results in low light (trees, storm days, etc.).

**summit** · 06-07-2008, 10:04 AM

Panning technique and go spend $300 on a real flash.... or take that $300 and sell the f/4... upgrade to a f/2.8

**Natedogg** · 06-10-2008, 02:28 PM

That was a 420EX... I have a 580EX as well, but the complexity it drives me crazy. I like stupid stuff. Stupid is as stupid does.
Thanks, I'll look into some 2.8 glass... is the old 16-35L 2.8 a good lens?