17-40/L lens...finding rare uses. What do you do with it?

[SynterX]

I was all excited to get the thing, and now that I have it, I am finding I just don't have many uses for it. I am constantly wishing for more than 40, and rarely using the 17 end. I keep reverting back to the kit 28-135 to get my shots. Granted, these are all indoor type shots. I was trying to replicate the 18-55 I used to have, only better IQ and build quality for a decent price. The $629 was about right.

So, those of you that have one, what do you use it for? I'm thinking of getting rid of it and either getting one "super" lens, that would replace both the 17-40 and 28-135, or something else.

I sure do prefer the L build quality, but I don't see any one lens that will cover me. Suggestions?

[TenD]

I think the problem lies in how you learned to compose when you first started in photography. If you started with a certain range of lens(probably not 17-40), then the 17-40 will seem totally foreign to you.

The common wisdom on a lot of the internet photography boards is if someone asks for a "landscape" lens the usual response is: "one of the UWA lenses out there". I have never subscribed to this, 28mm was always plenty wide on my film body, so 17mm on a crop body should also be plenty wide.

I finally decided to see what all of the UWA hoopla was about and bought a Tokina 12-24(I have a 10D and the Canon 10-22 won't fit my body). I felt the same way about the 12-24 that you do about the 17-40: What do I do with this huge field of view? I seem to have to get ultra close to my subject, or I capture way too much weakening the composition. It's all a matter of your perspective and how you learned to compose.

I started with an SLR and was only allowed to use a 50mm lens on it. That's how I started in photography. I am still a closet 50mm composer. I look at a scene and compose it in my head, I put my camera to my eye and sure enough, the scene is really close a normal lens' FOV.

I have tried to break myself out of this by allowing myself one lens from my bag for a walkabout. I have to force my mind to compose for this lens. It opens up new worlds for me, and even if it doesn't work, it's a good mind game.

I think if you force yourself to use the 17-40 more, especially at the wide end, you'll find it more and more useful.

[RichNY]

Have you considered the Canon 28-300L IS?

[ekk]

if i had a FF (5D), the 17-40 would be a great ultra-wide for landscapes and such. on a crop body though, id rather go with the 17-55IS F2.8 .. just as wide, a lil longer, plus IS and a stop faster.

if you like the 28-135 range, perhaps the 24-105L F4 IS would be a good choice?

[DonSchap]

I always saw the fall back as the EF 24-105mm f/4L ... which was the suggested kit lens for the EOS 5D. On a 40D, the 105mm becomes effectively a 168mm.

Couple that with an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and a good flash (580EX) ... and you pretty much had your everyday stuff covered.

That'd be my suggestion .. for what it is worth.

[drama]

I use the 17 40 for all my indoor people shots with flash
I agree with Ten D's summation, I find it wide enough for landscapes on my 40D, love the build quality & the IQ with it

The other point of view is , if your 28 135 is doing what you need, that is fine then

[JTL]

I always saw the fall back as the EF 24-105mm f/4L ... which was the suggested kit lens for the EOS 5D. On a 40D, the 105mm becomes effectively a 168mm.

Couple that with an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and a good flash (580EX) ... and you pretty much had your everyday stuff covered.

That'd be my suggestion .. for what it is worth.Exactly how I decided to go. Those two lenses are a great combo on a crop camera.

[SynterX]

That's funny, I ordered a 24-105 and should have it today. I might keep the 17-40, or sell it and grab the 10-22 you mentioned. I think that would be handy for those times when I need to do something really wide. After using the 17-40, I find I really dislike the flimsy feeling of the 28-135. I'm spoiled now. The L's are so darn solid feeling, no creep, no wiggle. I will check out the 10-22, thanks.

I'm basically looking for the fewest lenses as possible to cover most anything. I'd rather have 3 good ones, than 5 kinda good ones. Although, I do like the 28-135 I have. It's giving me decent images. I will keep it just for the fun of it. Then once I pay all this crap off, maybe look into a long, 200-300mm lens for outdoor stuff.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[michaelb]

... After using the 17-40, I find I really dislike the flimsy feeling of the 28-135. I'm spoiled now. The L's are so darn solid feeling, no creep, no wiggle. I will check out the 10-22, thanks.
....

So true. My 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an amazing lens optically and the IS is a lifesaver, but in terms of build it can't hold a candle to my 70-200 f/4.

However, I find that the 17-55 and the 70-200 f/4 will cover most of what I photograph. In addition, I have found that having IS in my most used FL (17-55) is a huge benefit.

[SynterX]

Just mounted the 24-105...uh, WOW! That thing is sharp! The same pictures in my office taken with this lens are noticeably sharper and clearer than the 28-135. And the AF is so quiet and smooth. Man, I think I'm set. The zoom range is perfect for everyday use.

I showed the set up to the wife, and all she said was, and I quote, "Good Lord your camera is huge.". Battery grip, giant lens, and it is starting to look like a real camera! Ha Ha.

[michaelb]

"Good Lord your camera is huge."..
:D:D:D

Glad to hear you like the 24-105; its a sweet lens, just not wide enough for me, except if mounted on a 5D. ;)

[TheWengler]

So, those of you that have one, what do you use it for?

I don't have this lens but I have a Pentax 16-45mm f/4 that I use for landscapes and paired with a flash for indoor people shots.

[dropoff]

Here is a huge post on POTN with a bunch of 17-40L pics. Apologies in advance if i am not allowed to spam other sites. Theres a bunch of archives of shot taken on many different lenses on this site too if you are interested.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=134756