RnB180

17 40 is a lens Ive been looking at, I was thinking that or the 16 35

I just picked up a 24 70 and I love its clarity. So you can say im hooked on L glass hahaha
Im kind of looking for a new low light telephoto, possibly the 70-200 2.8 is, however that lens is baller status, so pricey...

17-40 however is less scarey of an investment, so I might look into a wide angle lens replacement next,

how do you like the 17 40?

EAmon

i wonder if that pink IS got laughed at cuz its Hella Tucked at Hella Flush

xknowonex

16-35 is ridiculously priced. For that cash you can get a 70-200 2.8, which is a much more impressive piece of glass.

17-40L is probably the most versatile and reasonably priced lens on the Canon lineup. I love it.

Buy your stuff used off local sellers. Cheapest I have seen a 70-200 is about 1100-1200 used.

xknowonex

INFINI

iTrader: (1)

Actually the extra stop with the 16-35 is very coveted with high priced professional full frame photographers. The investment is well worth it but on a lower budget the 17-40 if awesome and at times out performs the 16-35 in sharpness. the 70-200 f/ 4 L is a very nice daylight lens as well but that 's about it if your not using a tripod. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is really nice But then again it's really not 70-200 with your guys cameras and your really not taking full advantage of the lens. Not that it;s really a bad thing. I have seen some crazy cool 1.6 crop photos with allot of lenses cause it makes for a more shallow depth of field on most some cases.

Speed costs $$ and by the way if your using anything at the 50D and under range than the 10-22 Canon is your best choice for wide angle. Your not going to take full advantage of the optics or wide angle with the 17-40 because of the crop factor. Best bang for your buck with a 1.6 crop non Full Frame will be the 10-22. It's the 16-35 equiv. Pretty much.

Anyways allot of nice cars here Wish I had been able to go but my car really was and is not ready atm. Thanks for sharing your photos with us. Hope to see more if you have them.

xknowonex

I am not saying that its a bad piece of glass. If money is no object, why not. But the question is if you really need a 2.8 wide angle lens for that much more money? If I need to use it take pictures of people indoors, I would rather use the 70-200 from a little distance away to get a more candid shot instead of being up in someone's face with the 16-35. The other drawback with the 16-35 is its 82mm filter thread while the standard for most professional grade lenses are 77mm.

Another really good wide-angle lens is the Tokina 12-24mm and I have used pretty much for 90% of all my stuff. Its very sharp, well built, has easy to correct distortion, and a constant aperture.

RnB180

If I were to want a wide angle lens 10-22 is a bit too wide for me even on a cropped sensor. I suppose its good for scenery shots, but I do people pictures the most. Id say 10mm is way too too much distortion for the type of photos I photograph, Even for cars.. Great for landscapes and architectural shots however.

I use a cheap 18-55 IS kit lens as my fun lens and I only use that one at 18mm, haha so many people that absolutely hate the 18mm focal length (28mm on full frame) because the distortion is pretty unattractive to the model.

whats making the 16-35 more appealing to me than the 17 40 is the background blur quality. There is no comparison between an f4 vs f2.8 for background blur.


it's also the main reason what I dont want the 70-200 f4 lenses, because their bokeh can't touch the 2.8 counterparts. plus the 2.8 on the 70-200 will serve a great benefit to the user in low light events. however its a bit too long for standard portrait shoots on a cropped sensor imo.

I have the 70-300 is usm and i NEVER use it for portraits hahaha, 24-70 best all around lens for me so far for both portraits and general photography.

INFINI

iTrader: (1)

LOL 10mm on the crop is way not for any portraits regularly I was not really talking about any specific types of photos as much as the technical aspects. I did not think you were bashing the lens

I have the 17-40 on my 5D. Great combo on a budget. If I could afford the 16-35 I would for sure get it due specifically to the extra stop. It's worth it for me. Also I actually use allot more prime lenses now than zoom. I am moving slowly into being a studio photographer as well so this changes allot. Just better glass all around, but you need to change lenses more often if you want another focal length

In the end it's all about supply and demand. If you need it, you get it if you can. I think looking back the 10mm with people and automobiles are too much but with landscapes they are cool and I will NEVER stop shooting landscapes So I can see the 17-40 being a nice good lens for either the 1.6 crop or the FF.

In a month or so I am gonna have a photo meet for enthusiasts of all levels. We can talk glass then.