I sold the 16-35 mk III for the 17-40 L
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ส.ค. 2024
- I love the 17-40mm f/4. I thought I was going to love the 16-35 f/2.8 even more - so I bought it. I sold it a few months later.
In this video I talk through the pros and cons of the lens. I explain the decision to sell the 16-35, and I talk though who should be buying this lens in late 2019.
Amazon link for this lens: amzn.to/2YcWEhI
Matthew's book on fasting: amzn.to/3cztbXz
Hey guys! Thanks for watching, let me know why you love the 17-40 f/4.
I'm using the second copy bought in 2018 of this great 17-40mm beloved lens of mine. The first copy bought in 2010 worn out due to extreme use by my son for wedding group portraits.
Now I use it strictly for landscape shots. Pair it with matching legends 5D Classic and 5DII. Needless to say, results are amazing. Both copies of this glass were bought brand new.
Great vid, I have the EOS Rebel T7i (800D) and just ordered this lens, so excited! The fact that a 2003 lens is still relevant in 2020 is amazing to me, love Canon glass.
It is really great that Canon made their l lenses so well, isn't it?
Great video! Thanks for the information. I've been considering getting it but now I'm certain.
You're welcome! I think it's a great lens.
The fact you could have the option to control a bit more your light aperture and deph of field is a must and always wanted, a full stop is the minimun better, I would rather like the 16-35mm, but when in my school I made a homework with a 17-40 because the 16-35mm was not abailable because must people want it, leaving the poor 17mm as a leftover, but oh my! I left impresed by how good resolution it has, if you photograph in a small space, or even in a seamless and still small studio, that beloved shallow depth of fiel is almost nonsesense so I had the chance to shoot at the sweet spot, even at f4 is nice, you just give some nice points. Even with an aps-c camera, this could work as an upgrade of the 18-55, it is a bit wider, it is shorter but the f number does not change and has better optics. It is underated, but shure it is a nice lens lml
This video helped so much thank you👌🏻
Glad it helped!
Thinking on getting this lens to update my lens kit . Nice video dude !
Thanks many! Glad I could help.
Thanks for everything. Still can’t decide if I want to go for the 16-35 yet though 😥
Just bought this lens. I'm new to Photography so I'm looking forward to this upgrade from my kit lens
This is a huge upgraded from a kit lens! Hope you love it!
I have the EF 17-40 f4 L and have resisted the temptation to pay the extra coin for the 16-35, mainly because the 17-40 does everything I need a wide zoom to do.
It is simple wisdom to recognize that you don't need the "next best thing." If you are happy with what you have, and it gets the results you need....
I never use a tripod if I can avoid it, since I feel it takes away the spontaneity of hand-held work. Matthew, the key point seems to be: if you do Stills photography, this 17-40mm is ideal since with a 17-40mm lens, as long as you are shooting 1/40th second or less, you don't need to get camera shake. Alternatively if you are doing Video photography, then you DO need the IS feature, as your video demonstrated very well. When it comes to longer lenses like a 200mm then IS is important even for stills. Do you agree?
Liked and subscribed :) Waiting for my 17-40 to come in the mail
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it! Hope you enjoy your lens!
I just sold my Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III and now thinking about getting 17-40 lens to replace it because it's lighter and smaller.
What camera and lens did you use for this video?
Mostly the 6dmk2 and the 24-105 (l)
I got one with dust in the lens. Still, the dust is not seen on the pictures. Got it for 150 because of the dust and that's not a bad deal in my opinion. Dust can sometimes get in to the lens but I don't know if it is typical to this lens...
Yeah, dust in the lens normally doesn't effect picture quality. Is like when you focus through a window that's dirty
How is the video autofocus noise when recording? If possible can you please make a test video regarding that because I am really thinking about buying this lens?
Ethan H its quite noisy and you can hear the motor, but if you are using a lavalier, it would b fine.. Got a review of this lens for video on my channel 👌🏻
@@dalbermatianman thanks man!
Sorry I missed this comment - yes, I agree with the above!
Thanks!
2024 i bought 17-40 around $270 for my sony a7iii
I have a Canon R50 and I just bought this lens with the ef adapter. I mainly want it for street photography and maybe some portrait. What other lenses would you recommend for a beginner?
There are some GREAT rf lenses for the r series cameras that are hard not to recommend. I would recommend getting a couple prime lenses that are in your budget.
Depending on your budget and what you are shooting, I really enjoyed using the 70-200 f/4. It isn't as crazy expensive as the 2.8, but is still an incredible lens (and way lighter as well).
You could also adapt some older ef lenses too - they are a great value now, and are still some incredible lenses.
@@MatthewSchaefer Thank you!! Will definitely look into the 70-200 f/4. I was also thinking of buying the 50mm f/1.8. Great video by the way!
This lens has a lovely vintagevquality to its photos and videos
Agreed! It is quite pleasing!
I use the Canon 24-105mm and I love it. Would you recommend adding the 17-40? Video purposes only.
I do use the 24-150 the most. It's a great lens. But yes, the 17-40 might be a nice addition. You will use it less but when you want to go wide you have it in your bag. Especially for the price.
Yeah, it just depends a bit on what you shoot. If you need something wide? 24 just doesn't quite cut it.
I'm confused about the 17-40 having IS?
17-40 doesn't have IS. Sorry for any confusion.
nop
I think the discourse online has gotten a bit toxic when it comes to photographic gear. It’s all about optical perfection and pixel peeping and so little about the actual art itself. This particular lens was professional grade and state of the art when released, there is no chance all the nay-sayers out there can unlock all of its potential.
Well said! If you can't get good results (superb, actually) from this lens, is time to stop blaming the lens!
Dude, where have you seen this lens for $200? I have looked everywhere and I have never seen it dip under $300 and even then, I still haven't seen one go for $300. Maybe an exaggeration?
Facebook marketplace is the key for me. You also send to have more luck just after Christmas time, in my experience.
17-40 may cheaper have longer reach but does not have IS...good on tripod or camera with ibis...weatherseal? 24 or below are super wide has warp distort aberration vnet issues try fix in post...35 prime is costly f1.8 but meant for video depth of field bokha focused on subject and low light but 16-35 f4 has is but 16-35f2.8 no is to be on a tripod.
The magic three zooms 16-35f4 is 24-105f4 is 70-200f2.8 is with primes 24 35 85 105 400. Wildlife 100-400 150-500 150-600. Travel tamron 18-400 apsc. Super wide tamron 10-24 apsc. Most sigma and tamron not ef.
In all I would not use 17-40 handheld with canon cameras that dont have ibis or lense has no is. Neither also use 16-35f2.8 nor tamron sigma 18-35 art apsc lenses.