Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Very blonde question


snapperkate 11 13
11 Sep 2013 10:37PM
thank you all for your advice. Maybe will do some more reading before investing
colinUK 12 6 United Kingdom
16 Sep 2013 8:59PM
Kate its Pro and amateur use basically, as someone has pointed out. Good lenses are better also in everything looks clearer.. due to construction and materials used.
However to have great fun you can use less cost effective lenses, and get good images too.

It's how deep is the purse?

Colin
snapperkate 11 13
16 Sep 2013 10:49PM
The purse is not as deep as the one for clothes shopping lol. I am just trying to gauge how much I might need
17 Sep 2013 12:12AM

Quote:If you need/want a 17-40L, I'd look at Ebay for a used one. But one thing to consider is that the 17-40L is designed for a full frame camera and would need to remember that it would give a roughly 27-80mm equivalent field of view, taking its crop factor into consideration. Otherwise, I'd opt for a new, less expensive (not to mention faster) Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, which would be in your favour, as your 40D is an APS-C body, and the 17-50 was designed for APS-C in mind.

Mind it, 17-50 is still 17-50 mm focal length, even if designed for APS-C. Here they are different from zoom compacts where they state equivalent focal length. So 17-50mm still gives you 27-80mm equivalent field of view (with crop factor 1.6). I would prefer Canon over Sigma lens as a rule (there might be a few exceptions though). At least with 17-40L you won't be tied to crop sensor .
GlennH 16 1.9k 1 France
17 Sep 2013 8:01AM
The Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 in the middle of Conrad's list is a capable alternative to the 17-40mm, though as you'd expect it doesn't have the same build quality. Perhaps that's an advantage - it balances well on lighter EOS bodies, whereas heftier 'L' lenses often seem slightly mismatched to me. Smile
Bluetooth 14 18 England
17 Sep 2013 8:35AM

Quote:180 repair or 23.99 for a Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Filter from WEX.......No brainer really...Wink

Hard luck Ade, even though I understand the reasons as a pro you probably don't use a filter.......



Why bother buying l quality glass then sticking a cheap and nasty uv filter on the front, now that is a no brainer !
Evertonian 8 729 England
17 Sep 2013 9:14AM

Quote:180 repair or 23.99 for a Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Filter from WEX.......No brainer really...Wink

Hard luck Ade, even though I understand the reasons as a pro you probably don't use a filter.......

Why bother buying l quality glass then sticking a cheap and nasty uv filter on the front, now that is a no brainer !



Who said anything about 'Cheap and nasty'. Tiffen UV protectors are anything but, I would venture.
conrad 17 10.9k 116
17 Sep 2013 9:26AM

Quote:Why bother buying l quality glass then sticking a cheap and nasty uv filter on the front, now that is a no brainer !


Could be an interesting experiment: someone supply two images taken with an L lens, one taken with and one without a UV filter, and you tell us which is which... Wink
Bluetooth 14 18 England
17 Sep 2013 9:55AM

Quote:180 repair or 23.99 for a Tiffen 77mm UV Protector Filter from WEX.......No brainer really...Wink

Hard luck Ade, even though I understand the reasons as a pro you probably don't use a filter.......

Why bother buying l quality glass then sticking a cheap and nasty uv filter on the front, now that is a no brainer !

Who said anything about 'Cheap and nasty'. Tiffen UV protectors are anything but, I would venture.



I put a 90 hoya uv on the front of my first expensive lens, but then you have to think all the work gone into that lens to make it good, then you go and stick a uv filter on the front. Much better off putting on a lens hood to protect the front element.
mikehit 12 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
17 Sep 2013 11:34AM
And the filter manufacturers have spent a lot of work on getting their filters to be optically neutral so they work with the very best lenses (after all, if CaNikon can do it, why not Hoya?). It is strange how many landscape photographers in particular have all their fancy expensive gear and still prefer to use filters a lot of the time. I'm surprised they manage to sell any of their compromised pictures.

You can take this article to mean that if you don't use a filter and the lens gets scratched it doesn't really matter, or using a filter doesn't really matter.
17 Sep 2013 2:25PM
I had a look at the article. Fine example of photographic Luddite this guy is. Sad As for filter use - I heartily recommend a good lens hood as a minimum in sterile city environment, and protective ( or UV) filter of good brand in dusty or otherwise rough conditions such as sea spray, etc. While thin glass is unlikely to protect from particularly rough handling, it's flat (and reasonably cheap) surface is much easier to clean than lens front element, and lots of grit on front element does affect image clarity - even if it cannot be seen on camera screen or 800x600 pixels Internet pictureWink. For purists that absolutely refuse to use a filter I have a question - do you think that the air between the lens and the photograph subject is all that perfect? As for me - it is much murkier and more turbulent than thin optical glass with submicron precision flat surface.
stevekhart 15 4.5k 3 United Kingdom
18 Sep 2013 3:55PM
The first time you spend 1k on a zoom lens you suddenly realise what all the fuss is about - its like having a whole new camera.
GlennH 16 1.9k 1 France
18 Sep 2013 4:53PM

Quote:The first time you spend 1k on a zoom lens you suddenly realise what all the fuss is about - its like having a whole new camera.


...and a whole new bank account. Smile

I guess I'm an 'L' series cheapskate. My first 'L' series was a duffed up 80-200mm 'magic drainpipe', and all of my subsequent 'L' lenses have been at least 200-300 shy of a grand. That first purchase certainly opened my eyes - it injected a completely different technical quality into the slides I was shooting at the time.

I always got the impression that Canon aren't so unassailable at the wide end of the 'L' scale, optically at least. I even ditched a 17-40mm, though not for any rational reason -- I was looking for better edge performance (which I judged to be pretty poor at point-blank range).

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.