17-40L on a t2i?

[asdtommy]

I know the t2i wouldn't bring out the best of the 17-40. But I'm wondering how sharp are the pictures with the lens on the t2i? I would get a tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-50 OS but I will be upgrading to a FF camera. So I thought I should be stocking up on some good lens .

Anybody had experience with L on a crop sensor?

[Snarfy]

If you are planning to eventually move up to full-frame then the 17-40 would be a fantastic choice. It will make fantastic images on the t2i. I've taken photos on a friend's 40D with a couple different L-series lenses and they were excellent.

[crbeveri]

the 17-40 has a little more chromatic abrasion and barrel distortion than the 16-35 however the 17-40 is a fantastic lens. I shot with a 17-35 Tamron for years (and still do) on bodies from the Rebel XS to a 30D, 50D, 1D3, 5D, and now 5D2. The range will still be "wide" as some people consider wide from X-35mm. I think you will enjoy the 17-40 a great amount and if I didn't already have a wide angle (my tamron) I would be all over one.

Forgot to note: the barrel distortion probably wont be noticeable at all on the T2i as it's not FF so you're really not shooting at 17mm.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by asdtommy

I know the t2i wouldn't bring out the best of the 17-40. But I'm wondering how sharp are the pictures with the lens on the t2i? I would get a tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-50 OS but I will be upgrading to a FF camera. So I thought I should be stocking up on some good lens .

Anybody had experience with L on a crop sensor?

I use L lenses on the T2i a lot without issues. Never used the 17-40 but I do use the 16-35 on it.
Not sure what you're using now but I would assume the 17-40 is a decent upgrade from the kits lens so I say go for it.

[venchka]

I remember reading an article by Galen Rowell when this lens & the 70-200/4.0 were new. Mr. Rowel raved about the pair teamed with the first Gitzo carbon fiber tripod. Any lens good enough for Galen Rowell would be more than good enough for mere mortals.

[Hardrock]

I love the 17-40L on my 50d and 7d. Its very sharp even at f4. There is distortion at 17 but can be fixed with PS. My issue is sometimes I wish I would have gotten the 16-35 due to the 16mm and f2.8. But for the price the 17-40 is fantastic.

[Village Idiot]

Originally Posted by Snarfy

If you are planning to eventually move up to full-frame then the 17-40 would be a fantastic choice. It will make fantastic images on the t2i. I've taken photos on a friend's 40D with a couple different L-series lenses and they were excellent.

It's rather meh on an APS-C sensor. I mean, it's much better than the kit, but the focal length and aperture are nothing exceptional. Once you get a FF camera though, it becomes a different beast. I love wide angle photography and portraiture and either this lens or the 24-70 are what stay on my camera most of the time.

Originally Posted by crbeveri

Forgot to note: the barrel distortion probably wont be noticeable at all on the T2i as it's not FF so you're really not shooting at 17mm.

The focal length of a lens never changes, just the field of view. A 17mm lens is 17mm on a full frame, APS-H, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor. The field of view is the only thing the changes.

At 17mm, on a 1.5x APS-C sensor, you're shooting at a 17mm focal length with a 25.5mm field of view.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by Village Idiot

It's rather meh on an APS-C sensor. I mean, it's much better than the kit, but the focal length and aperture are nothing exceptional. Once you get a FF camera though, it becomes a different beast. I love wide angle photography and portraiture and either this lens or the 24-70 are what stay on my camera most of the time.



The focal length of a lens never changes, just the field of view. A 17mm lens is 17mm on a full frame, APS-H, APS-C, or 4/3 sensor. The field of view is the only thing the changes.

At 17mm, on a 1.5x APS-C sensor, you're shooting at a 17mm focal length with a 25.5mm field of view.

yes and thus you do not have the distortion on the edges of the frame b/c you are not actually seeing 17mm wide you are only seeing 25.5mm wide. The magnification (use this term loosly here) is the same as 17mm but your field of view is not 17mm. Thus what I said was correct to a degree... I just didn't elaborate.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Hardrock

I love the 17-40L on my 50d and 7d. Its very sharp even at f4. There is distortion at 17 but can be fixed with PS. My issue is sometimes I wish I would have gotten the 16-35 due to the 16mm and f2.8. But for the price the 17-40 is fantastic.

Everything is a compromise. The 17-40 is smaller, lighter, 77mm filters (which match several other lenses including the 70-200) AND one half the price of the 16-35. That is a major factor. For the price of the 16-35 a person could have several lenses all performing functions that the 16-35 can't do. That would improve a person's photography more than 1mm on the wide end and one stop in maximum aperture.

[asdtommy]

Thanks for all the input! To answer any questions, I shoot with a 50mm 1.8 and kit lens.
Sometimes I find the kit not sharp enough as the 50m but 50m doesn't give me any focal length.

I know a tamy/sig 17-50 for a crop sensor would be the best choice, but is it really needed since I will upgrade to a FF. The 17-40L would be a 27.2-64 on a crop. I think 27.2 is a big step from the 50m.

Does anyone have any pictures taken?

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by asdtommy

Thanks for all the input! To answer any questions, I shoot with a 50mm 1.8 and kit lens.
Sometimes I find the kit not sharp enough as the 50m but 50m doesn't give me any focal length.

I know a tamy/sig 17-50 for a crop sensor would be the best choice, but is it really needed since I will upgrade to a FF. The 17-40L would be a 27.2-64 on a crop. I think 27.2 is a big step from the 50m.

Does anyone have any pictures taken?

don't have any pictures myself as I don't own the lens but here you can find pictures of this lens Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L