hi guys, please help me decide which lense to get as walk around lense... currently im using canon xt...

17-40 :bow:

Are those your only choices? If so, then yes, 17-40mm f/4 L. If you have a budget, then please let us know.

I have to have my wide, so 17-40.

i have the 17-40L and it's an amazing lens. only thing that sucks is it's a really slow lens. if you have a flash already, get the 17-40.

i had the 28-135mm before and i found the short end of the focal length was not wide enough at all. but considering that the 28-70 (or even the 24-70) is a fast lens with a max aperture of 2.8, it's one of the better choices. if you can do without the ~10mm on the short end, go with this lens.

essentially, if you get the 17-40, you'll be hating yourself in low-light.. if you get the 28-70, you'll be hating yourself when you can't foot-zoom your way to get the wide angles. if you wanna buy my 17-40, i'll gladly sell it so it can help pay for my 24-70L :D

I have a 28-70.

Sure, I could always ask for more on both ends as I'm almost always using it at one extreme or the other, but it is a great walk-around lens. I've had a lens in this same basic range ever since I first bought an SLR back in the 1980's. Truth is I've never owned a lens outside of this range.

The current model is a 24-70, so a bit more wide end to the range makes it even better.

The 17-40 would be great if you don't need to work outside of the wide end or if you don't mind changing lenses in the field. Myself, I can't be bothered to carry a second lens, much less put it on, so I stick with the zoom that best fits what I do.

If I HAD to own a different lens, the 17-40 would be my choice, so I feel your indecision :p

i had a 17-40. sold it for a 17-85. sold that for a 10-22. getting ready to sell that and get a real camera. full frame solves all problems.


if u have a crop camera go for the 17-40. it makes a great lens if u ever go full frame. its kinda an odd lens on the xt though. not too wide...not to tele. maybe u want a 17-85?

It all depends on what you shoot.
If you like shooting buildings, landscapes and stationary cars, get the 17-40L.
If you prefer people or moving cars, the 17-40 will give people a bit of an odd distortion, so I would opt for the 28-70 f/2.8.
And if you are shooting moving cars or sports or anything indoors, definitely get the 28-70 f-2.8

It all depends on what you shoot.
If you like shooting buildings, landscapes and stationary cars, get the 17-40L.
If you prefer people or moving cars, the 17-40 will give people a bit of an odd distortion, so I would opt for the 28-70 f/2.8.
And if you are shooting moving cars or sports or anything indoors, definitely get the 28-70 f-2.8

ahh that make sense.... i think i know what i want... thanks CRSXers...

24-70 2.8 L kills all .

i like distortion in people

i am getting it... damn it... 24-70 2.8 L mhuahauha

i am getting it... damn it... 24-70 2.8 L mhuahauha

HEY!

That wasn't on the list :laughing:

lawl

My 16-35mm 2.8 stays on my camera the majority of the time... I vote for the 17-40mm.

My 16-35mm 2.8 stays on my camera the majority of the time... I vote for the 17-40mm.

My 16-35 L shares time with my $100 50mm/1.8. :D

I had the 28-135mm IS when I was using film, but found it not to be wide enough on my cropped sensor. 24mm isn't much wider, but if you can live with that , I'd go with the 24-105mm F/4 IS; otherwise go with the 16-35 2.8, 17-40 F/4 or 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S (if you don't use film or don't plan to go full-frame).

i have the 17-40L and it's an amazing lens. only thing that sucks is it's a really slow lens. if you have a flash already, get the 17-40.

i had the 28-135mm before and i found the short end of the focal length was not wide enough at all. but considering that the 28-70 (or even the 24-70) is a fast lens with a max aperture of 2.8, it's one of the better choices. if you can do without the ~10mm on the short end, go with this lens.

essentially, if you get the 17-40, you'll be hating yourself in low-light.. if you get the 28-70, you'll be hating yourself when you can't foot-zoom your way to get the wide angles. if you wanna buy my 17-40, i'll gladly sell it so it can help pay for my 24-70L :D

How much you selling the 17-40mm for? Any interest in a 60mm f/2.8 macro + cash for the 17-40mm?

My choice would be 17-40mm lighter, less expensive and IMO it's easier to 'foot zoom' telephoto shots then wide angle shots. I think too many people get caught up on 'fast lenses'.

How much you selling the 17-40mm for? Any interest in a 60mm f/2.8 macro + cash for the 17-40mm?

My choice would be 17-40mm lighter, less expensive and IMO it's easier to 'foot zoom' telephoto shots then wide angle shots. I think too many people get caught up on 'fast lenses'.

Well, if you shoot low light, and flash is not allowable, a fast lens really does help. Plus it creates a nicer DOF

Well, if you shoot low light, and flash is not allowable, a fast lens really does help. Plus it creates a nicer DOF

I've used my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in really low light situations (wedding anniversary in a dimly lit hall and a bar) wide open at ISO 800-1600 and my shots flat out sucked, not one even half way decent shot. Obviously a slower lens wouldn't help, but I though my f/2.8 would have performed a little better. So thats why I no longer get fixated on fast lenses. As for the DOF I found I got just as nice if not better bokeh with my 70-200mm f/4L then my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
I know it's a completely different focal length/lens, but if I'm trying to get nice bokeh I just prefer to use the 70-200mm f/4L.

Not trying to start a war here, just giving some of my experience.

I've used my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in really low light situations (wedding anniversary in a dimly lit hall and a bar) wide open at ISO 800-1600 and my shots flat out sucked, not one even half way decent shot. Obviously a slower lens wouldn't help, but I though my f/2.8 would have performed a little better. So thats why I no longer get fixated on fast lenses. As for the DOF I found I got just as nice if not better bokeh with my 70-200mm f/4L then my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
I know it's a completely different focal length/lens, but if I'm trying to get nice bokeh I just prefer to use the 70-200mm f/4L.

Not trying to start a war here, just giving some of my experience.

Don't have much experience with that lens but the sample I tried once wasn't very good wide open. More vignetting than I'd like. It's decent at f/4. At wide end there also seems to be distortions. It's really a 22-50 f/4 lens ;)

For indoor, handheld, no flash, I love shooting with the 50/1.8 at 400-800 ISO.

why not tamron 17-50? cheaper , superr sharp and 2.8

Not tryin to start a debate just saying to look into that. I was going to buy the 17-40 and compared that with the 17-50 at the store. I took pics with both lenses and compared. As far as i saw my copy of the tamron was ridiculously sharp. Once again not tryin to start a 10 page war, the 17-40 is great! i mean who can deny that red ring.

Whatever lens you choose you simply can't lose

edit: i know the guy mentioned it above ,sorry didnt see that