Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › Any Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L users?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L users?

post #1 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:02pm
Thread Starter 
I just got my hands on it and i love it!

Optics are wonderfully sharp and the colors are great.

sample shot -



Also, comments on the photo would be good, i literally just started this photography hobby a week ago.

Camera is the Canon 450D.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #2 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:13pm
Do you mean the 40D? I have my eye on the Canon 16-35 f2.8L, but that's seriously going to put a dent in my wallet.

Picture's looking good though.
Reply
post #3 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by robojack View Post
Do you mean the 40D? I have my eye on the Canon 16-35 f2.8L, but that's seriously going to put a dent in my wallet.

Picture's looking good though.
nope, its the 450D, otherwise known as the Digital Rebel XSi over in the States/Canada i reckon!
Reply
post #4 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:34pm
You might want to post in the Canon thread in Gear-Fi.

Played with the 17-40 a bit last night. Good build, AF speed but it is f4 which is ok. Looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is supposed to be awesome for the price.
Reply
post #5 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:43pm
Yeah, that extra step is definitely helpful when shooting indoors. But if you use flash, 17-40 can be just as good as long as the subject is not too far.
Reply
post #6 of 30
6/6/08 at 3:59pm
The 17-40 is one of my main lenses. Optics are very good, even on a fullsize cam, and the ring-USM is really fast and silent. Dust and water sealing is nice too and I was in several situations where this gave me the extra security to shoot nevertheless.
If you are only using 1.6 crop cameras you can have a look at the EW-83DII which is a lot better than the included hood.
Reply
post #7 of 30
6/7/08 at 5:22pm
That's an extremely good shot for a beginner. Putting aside the use of a wide angle lens, the picture has very good potentials with a bit of cropping. Shows that you have a good set of photographic eyes. A bit more practise and experience and you'll be ready for some photographic competitions.
Reply
post #8 of 30
6/7/08 at 10:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herandu View Post
That's an extremely good shot for a beginner. Putting aside the use of a wide angle lens, the picture has very good potentials with a bit of cropping. Shows that you have a good set of photographic eyes. A bit more practise and experience and you'll be ready for some photographic competitions.
thank you! (:

it would seem that so far, i can only capture landscape-ish shots. I need alot more work on shots that involve animals, people or moving objects. I just can't seem to get the shutter speed right! Guess i'll have to head out more often and just click away.

I'm also extremely lucky to have a dad who used to be crazy about photography, which explains the use of such an expensive set of optics with a beginner's dslr.
Reply
post #9 of 30
6/8/08 at 2:42am
Looks to be a nice lens. If only it were faster, 2.8 would have been nice.

Though it does have the internal zoom and weatherproofing that my Tamron 17-50 is missing.

Also don't worry so much about shutter speed if you aren't getting great photos. I normally use the aperture priority setting. Though sometimes you need to adjust the shutter speed for tricky shots.

If I were to use fully manual settings, I'd miss more than half of my photo opportunities.
Reply
post #10 of 30
6/8/08 at 2:55am
I was planning on getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, but I'm thinking about the 24mm f/1.4L instead. I zoom with my feet most of the time, though the wider angle on the extreme of the 16-35 can be handy. If you're shooting flash or shooting in broad daylight, the 17-40 is a sensible choice.
Reply
post #11 of 30
6/8/08 at 3:00am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibin247 View Post
I was planning on getting the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, but I'm thinking about the 24mm f/1.4L instead. I zoom with my feet most of the time, though the wider angle on the extreme of the 16-35 can be handy. If you're shooting flash or shooting in broad daylight, the 17-40 is a sensible choice.
For night shots i would probably use long exposure plus a tripod so i guess the 17-40 is alright for me. My next purchase would most probably be the sigma 105MM macro. I've seen pictures taken by it and i must admit i love the bokeh effect and contrasts that it produces. I would love to try the Canon 100mm but its above my budget...
Reply
post #12 of 30
6/8/08 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post
For night shots i would probably use long exposure plus a tripod so i guess the 17-40 is alright for me.
Until I saw that night shot taken by you I would never have considered the 17-40 to be able to handle the situation so admirably. Available sparse street lighting and wide angle lens with a maximum aperture of F4.0 are not the kind of things that are supposed to go together. You managed to turn that misconception on its head, which underlines my believe that you got the making of a great still life photographer.

I read with interest your intention to get the 105mm. Many years ago a added a Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5 macro ( in its days one of the best 105mm macro lens at any price) to my collection in the believe that it would get much use. But I found that I used my Canon 35-105mm for most of the time.
So consider the percentage of photography that you plan to do with the 105mm, before you put your money down on it.
Reply
post #13 of 30
6/8/08 at 12:43pm
You could have composed the shot better by making it more symmetrical, the shot could've been wider for emphasis (EXIF says you took it @ 40mm, ISO100 with a 30 sec exposure) and you could've bumped the ISO up to around 800 to combat the need for a long exposure and camera shake.
Reply
post #14 of 30
6/8/08 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTRacer View Post
You could have composed the shot better by making it more symmetrical, the shot could've been wider for emphasis (EXIF says you took it @ 40mm, ISO100 with a 30 sec exposure) and you could've bumped the ISO up to around 800 to combat the need for a long exposure and camera shake.
And those are just a few possibilities, but for someone with just 1 week of photographic experience it's quite an achievement already. I would have been well pleased with myself if I could muster such a shot within the 1st week of taking up a camera, let alone a wide lens used in a night shot.
Reply
post #15 of 30
6/8/08 at 1:33pm
He's asking for critique on that photo, none of that was there to be spiteful, it's just a nudge in the right direction. Smothering him in praise will just inflate his ego and he'll end up stagnating in terms of skill and composition.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › Any Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L users?