#1  
Old 30-07-2013, 11:11 AM
dannat's Avatar
dannat (Daniel)
daniel

dannat is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Macedon shire, Australia
Posts: 3,426
Canon 17-40mm for nightscapes

anyone using the canon 17-40 for nightscapes on FF, i cant aford the 16-35 & i dont always like the superwide view that the samyang 14mm would show
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 30-07-2013, 11:21 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Yep.

Look at my Alone Under the Stars image in the nightscapes forum.

I also shot some two nights ago which I will post tonight.

It's not ideal being a stop slower, but, it's no slouch.

The 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is next on my list before I head for the land of ice and fire.

H
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30-07-2013, 11:42 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,760
I've used it for a few shots. It can certainly be used, but you'll find f/4 too slow after a while.

On a 6D it might still be ok cause you can push the ISO.

Here's some of mine where I used it with a 40D:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=108322
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=93507
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30-07-2013, 01:56 PM
colinmlegg's Avatar
colinmlegg (Colin)
Registered User

colinmlegg is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Yep.

Look at my Alone Under the Stars image in the nightscapes forum.

I also shot some two nights ago which I will post tonight.

It's not ideal being a stop slower, but, it's no slouch.

The 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is next on my list before I head for the land of ice and fire.

H
H, are you getting it primarily for nightscapes? If yes, then it's not that great a lens at the wide extremes - fl and aperture. Stars are soft in corners. You'd be better off getting the Nikon 14-24. Not a whole lot more dollarwise, but a big jump in quality.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-07-2013, 02:10 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Hi Colin,

Not just for nightscapes. For landscape work in general. I just love the diffraction spikes it produces compared to the mess the 17-40mm f/4L USM creates.

H
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 31-07-2013, 07:23 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,563
I bought my 17-40 F/4 L years ago, probably 2003 or such at a guess, and have used it for lots and lots and lots of nightscapes etc over the years. I must have tens of thousands of photos taken using it, film and digital.

It's a good performer, can't complain As mike says f/4 might be a disadvantage, but it's super light and compact as a result, and I lived just fine without f/2.8.

Still going strong, never had a problem, enjoy its robust weather sealing - its been through many a wet stormy sandy beach shoot landscape etc.

I'm not technical with my reviews but would say it's got very little barrel distortion, its vignetting is corrected perfectly by canon in-built software so no problem there, its corner distortion on full frame is noticeable when pixel peeping in a starfield with elongated stars at the extremities, but is better than any other non-fisheye wide I have tried and nothing that would ruin the sale-ability of an otherwise good shot.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement