Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My first L lens!!

Z

Zoreke

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 26, 2010
69
0
Hi, I'm happy and wanted to share my joy! :D

I have a 40D and instead of buying a 7D I decided to put some $$ on a nice 17-40 F4 L, and I'm impressed!!! the image quality is awesome the pixels are sharp and the noise is low!!

Wow, I guess I'll keep this body for a while and get another L lens! these things are expensive but I fell like a better photographer now! :p

Cheers

Z
 
Congrats!

It's been three years since I bought my DSLR and I still haven't replaced the kit lens. I'd like to get an L-class zoom as a replacement, probably a used one. Photography is a real money hole...

Some non-L lenses are probably in my future though, like the Canon EF-S 10-20mm zoom.
 
Smart move. Your 40D just received one stellar upgrade, and the lens will last a lot longer than any state-of-the-art new body that is outdated in two or three years..
 
Congrats OP! Now you'll never go back to any other type of lens :p

My personal favs are:

16-35 mark2 2.8
24 - 70 2.8
35 1.4
70 - 200 f4 (I like the 4 better than the 2.8)
85 1.2
 
photography - a money pit - if you let it

enjoy your new L lens, I just got my 1st L 1 week ago and hopefully this weekend can take lots of shots with it
 
Thanks

Thank You everyone for your good energy!

I think the lens is sweet, great built quality, silent, fast and the image quality is fantastic!

I strongly recommend it to everyone, that is if you can pass the wife's check list:
1. what's wrong with your current lens?
2. are you going to pay how much for that?
3. The images look the same to me!
4. If you are a good photographer you can do it with any camera!
5. I hope you are happy now and don't buy any more lenses soon (yeah right)

Cheers

:D
 
Last edited:
Zoreke said:
Thank You everyone for your good energy!

I think the lens is sweet, great built quality, silent, fast and the image quality is fantastic!

I strongly recommend it to everyone, that is if you can pass the wife's check list:
1. what's wrong with your current lens?
2. are you going to pay how much for that?
3. The images look the same to me!
4. If you are a good photographer you can do it with any camera!
5. I hope you are happy now and don't buy any more lenses soon (yeah right)

Cheers

:D
Click to expand...

haha, amen brother.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Congrats!

It's been three years since I bought my DSLR and I still haven't replaced the kit lens. I'd like to get an L-class zoom as a replacement, probably a used one. Photography is a real money hole...

Some non-L lenses are probably in my future though, like the Canon EF-S 10-20mm zoom.
Click to expand...


unless you NEED a zoom (ie weddings, corporate functions etc) buy primes and zoom with your feet

you'll be surprised at how well you can do without going L in canon primes ( esp 85mm f1.8, 100 f2, and less so 50 f1.4 - a bit soft)

and equally how much better they are for corner to corner sharpness than zooms.... ( L primes... closest thing to Leica think 50 f1.2 85 f1.2 and much cheaper 135 f2)

jb
 
jaybeemac said:
unless you NEED a zoom (ie weddings, corporate functions etc) buy primes and zoom with your feet

you'll be surprised at how well you can do without going L in canon primes ( esp 85mm f1.8, 100 f2, and less so 50 f1.4 - a bit soft)

and equally how much better they are for corner to corner sharpness than zooms.... ( L primes... closest thing to Leica think 50 f1.2 85 f1.2 and much cheaper 135 f2)

jb
Click to expand...

Good advice. I keep a 24-70/2.8 around just for general use and for some event work, but other than that I'm 100% primes.

Just remember that "zooming with your feet" is not the same as using a zoom lens. Changing the subject-to-lens distance alters perspective; zooming with your lens does not. So the alternative to a zoom lens isn't necessarily zooming with the feet; it's having the correct prime on hand to achieve the desired perspective.
 
chrono1081 said:
Congrats OP! Now you'll never go back to any other type of lens :p

My personal favs are:

16-35 mark2 2.8
24 - 70 2.8
35 1.4
70 - 200 f4 (I like the 4 better than the 2.8)
85 1.2
Click to expand...
Will be buying the 70-200 f/4L this week from Amazon, because the free shipping. I usually order from B&H, but they charge for shipping to Alaska. A superb L lens is the following: EF 200mm f/2.8L USM II (black color with a red ring up in front). It's fast-focusing, sharp as a tack, and a big 77mm cap threads.
 
Not to put you on the spot Zoreke, but w/o pictures this thread.....is just text!!

Post some picts in this thread you've taken with your new lens!!!
 
Congrats on the lens! I have one and it is on my 40D also, and it is on there all the time. This lens is stunning.

What were your settings for the picture? I suggest getting in tighter and getting lower to the ground to make him look like he is higher in the air.
 
I have a 50mm f/1.8 prime, a 17-40L and a 70-200 f4 and that covers just about all that I shoot. I occasionally wish the 2 zooms were a little faster, but for the money, those 3 lenses are hard to beat.
 
70-200 f/4

70-200 f/4L IS is probably the best bang-for-your-buck you can possibly get today.

Never used the 17-40, but from what I have seen and read it seems to be up there too. Better image quality in many areas compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 even.

post more pics!
 
How does the 17-40 L IQ compare to the 17-55 EFS?

(I know the EFS has f2.8 and IS, but I'm interested in how the optical qualities compare)
 
VirtualRain said:
How does the 17-40 L IQ compare to the 17-55 EFS?

(I know the EFS has f2.8 and IS, but I'm interested in how the optical qualities compare)
Click to expand...

I have both of those lenses, and they are very comparable on an APS-C body. Both very sharp and contrasty with great color rendition, and CA is easily corrected with either lens. The similarities kind of stop there, though. The 17-55 is a much more versatile lens, and the 17-40 is better built and is weather sealed.

I generally use the 17-55 on my 7D, but if I'm shooting in inclement weather, I'll opt for the 17-40 instead. Otherwise, the 17-40 gets most of its use on my 5D Mark II, where it's a whole other kind of lens. Besides being an UWA lens on the full-frame camera, it gets its weak spots exposed: corners are absolute junk (though, to be fair, that's typical of UWA lenses).
 
Phrasikleia said:
Besides being an UWA lens on the full-frame camera, it gets its weak spots exposed: corners are absolute junk (though, to be fair, that's typical of UWA lenses).
Click to expand...

Any experience comparing the 17-40 vs the 16-35 on a FF? Does the 16-35 exhibit better corner quality?
 
I disagree with what a previous poster said about photography being a money pit... sure, like anything, it can be, but if you choose your purchases wisely, you can enjoy a good quality L series lens for a few years and sell it for almost the same as what you paid. My three used lenses that I purchased on ebay are worth exactly what I paid for them a couple years ago. Just choose carefully and you'll do well.

The 17-40 is a favorite and tends to be the one left on our T1i Canon most of the time. Also have a 70-200 f4 L and a 50mm 1.4. All are excellent choices.

Have fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back