I'm thinking about this L lens which is one of the cheapest on the market for about 39k.

I've read that since its a wide lens, portrait shots make the nose unflattering in pictures.

Is this so even at the long end at 40mm?


I want to make it replace the kit lens of my 30D and I'm willing to lose some range for the image quality.

Can anyone post some portrait pics on the long end of the 17-40?

Vic,

You can use the 17-40L as portrait lens. But it won't be outstanding. There are at least 2 reasons for this.

One is that 40mm is still too wide for portraiture. Even with the crop of 1.6x w/c makes that 64mm, it still isn't the same thing.

the 2nd reason is that f4, though bigger than your kit lens at f5.6, is still too stopped down to produce the background isolation and give a nice bokeh for your portraiture.

the cheapest solution is to get the P4k 50mm f1.8 mk2. Shot at f2.2-2.5, the background blur and sharpness is there. But this lens is not that nice with 5 blades. Better get the f1.4 version. Unfortunately, you are now treading the P18k mark.

But even if you can afford that, I still believe that a good portrait lens is around 60mm-135mm. You can get the ef-s macro 60mm f2.8 or even better the 85mm f1.8 lens. I use the 100 f2 usm myself, if I went sharpness, low light speed, and good bokeh and subject isolation. But 100mm is too long for some.

Others have gone the 70-200 f2.8L route. Too large, too heavy, and too white for my taste. Too expensive too, if only to have a portrait lens. But this is more versatile. But if you ask me, at almost 3lbs, it is too heavy and too large. But still, it is an option you should make.

Other options are getting a 24-70L or tamron 28-75 f2.8. The range is much better, and more useful for other types of work. the Tamron is around P23k too, so more affordable. Just use your kit lens to fill the 18-27mm, while the tammy handles the other range.

If you are really going to be serious with portraiture, best go with a primes. A 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 is your most affordable bet. Otherwise, a 24-70 or 28-75 option is also feasible.

I hope this has helped a bit.

i agree with the comment from above,

I think you can get the 17-40 at cheaper price in quiapo.

The cheapest local warranty price I got was about 36.5k

I already have the 50mm 1.8 mkII and I think its real nice, but I want something to replace the kit lens which is starting to literally fall apart on me (The silver strip around it is starting to break-off and its barely 2 months old).

I really want the 24-70 2.8 L. Thats about 63k cheapest I can find with local warranty but thats twice the price and I thought maybe I can get something thats half its price.

I saw the Tamron, but thats so much money for something that is not future proof (thats why I don't want an EF-S lens). I might share this with our film SLR in the house.

I was also thinking of the 70-200 f4L which is about 39k but a bit more than I might get an IS.

hmmmm.

I like landscape photos and portraits so I want a good all 'rounder.

The cheapest local warranty price I got was about 36.5k

I already have the 50mm 1.8 mkII and I think its real nice, but I want something to replace the kit lens which is starting to literally fall apart on me (The silver strip around it is starting to break-off and its barely 2 months old).

I really want the 24-70 2.8 L. Thats about 63k cheapest I can find with local warranty but thats twice the price and I thought maybe I can get something thats half its price.

I saw the Tamron, but thats so much money for something that is not future proof (thats why I don't want an EF-S lens). I might share this with our film SLR in the house.

I was also thinking of the 70-200 f4L which is about 39k but a bit more than I might get an IS.

hmmmm.

I like landscape photos and portraits so I want a good all 'rounder.

Your best bet is the tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. It is future proof AFAIC. It is not a DX, EF-S, or cropped version. It will work with a 5D or a 1D series with no vignetting. That is the best in its class for its price. I had this lens and I am thinking seriously of getting one again even if I have the 24-105L. It is much sharper than my L. The 28-75 has also seen successful stints with the 5D, so its track record is solid and proven.

The 70-200 f4L without IS will be hard to manage in low light situations (eg. 1/30, even 1/60). 70mm-135mm is ok there, and the bokeh will be ok even at f4, but the problem is shutter speeds in low light. Without IS, you'll have a hard time using it in sub-1/125 sec shutter speeds.

Also portraiture is not just about faces or heads. You may want some half body or full body shots. 70mm is going to be too long for that, unless you have space/room to move backwards.

Hence, the 24-70L or 28-75 Di recommendation. I strongly recommend these two. The tamron is fast, optically excellent, and affodable at P23k.

Hi Vic, to add....
I, too, have the 28-75 Tamron. Its a very sharp and light lens. At 75mm f2.8, sharp pa din. and, yes, I use it for portaits.

But as an all arounder, the 28mm falls short. I've seen the 24-105L and it produces very good images. Maybe you can add this to your options. This is as all around as you can get without sacrificing image quality. If I'm not mistaken, someone at phphoto was unloading this lens.

Regards

I'm also looking into the Canon 17-40 L Lens. Can anyone who has access to this lens post sample shots? Preferably with NO PP so we can see how this lens really performs.

thanks so much for answering guys!

The tamron does sound interesting. It just scares me of not being able to use it after when I upgrade.

Where can I get tamrons for a good price here?

thanks so much for answering guys!

The tamron does sound interesting. It just scares me of not being able to use it after when I upgrade.

Where can I get tamrons for a good price here?



Henry's.

Look for Nick. Tell him I sent you. Then duck :)

Just kidding on the last sentence.:Grin:

oh, bring your camera and a CF so you can test the lens.
.

I'm also looking into the Canon 17-40 L Lens. Can anyone who has access to this lens post sample shots? Preferably with NO PP so we can see how this lens really performs.

Hi, Ian! I once used a 17-40 L Lens on a model shoot and here's the outcome with no PP done.

Check it out in these links:
http://virtualaly.multiply.com/photos/photo/14/12

http://virtualaly.multiply.com/photos/photo/14/27

For most of my shots, I used the 70-200 f/4L. Again no PP was done.

check out the whole album.

http://virtualaly.multiply.com/photos/album/14

Hi Aly,

Thanks for the sample shots. I've seen a bunch of pictures produced by this lens in other sites but it did not say whether it had PP or not. I was not sure if the lens really produced sharp images with vivid colors or was it just due to heavy PP.

- ian

Hi Aly,

Thanks for the sample shots. I've seen a bunch of pictures produced by this lens in other sites but it did not say whether it had PP or not. I was not sure if the lens really produced sharp images with vivid colors or was it just due to heavy PP.

- ian

Yup, my multiply album of the model did not undergo PP except for framing the picture and putting my name on the lower portion. So that's as is where is.

Peter Jaena PPed one of my shots in the "Priscilla Meirelles de Alemida" thread and My Goodness, how he enhanced my picture!

I'm thinking about this L lens which is one of the cheapest on the market for about 39k.

I've read that since its a wide lens, portrait shots make the nose unflattering in pictures.

Is this so even at the long end at 40mm?


I want to make it replace the kit lens of my 30D and I'm willing to lose some range for the image quality.

Can anyone post some portrait pics on the long end of the 17-40?
hi. here's one photo i took using the 17-40.

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/photography/showphoto.php?photo=2134&cat=500&ppuser=606

PPed for white balance correction.

Hi Vic,

How about considering a Tamron 17-50 instead of the 28-75? The 17-50 gives you wide. Imho, much more useful as a walkaround for your 30D. The Tammy is also well regarded as a portrait lens based on the reviews I've read in the web.

I had a 17-40L before. It was ok for body and group shots. However, come lowlight and close-ups, I wasn't too happy with it. Being a WA lens, it tends to exaggerate the subject's face. Parang mas malaman or chubby yung tao sa pic. It didn't suit my taste. I sold it and ugraded to a 17-55 IS.

Being a WA lens, it tends to exaggerate the subject's face. Parang mas malaman or chubby yung tao sa pic.

i agree with this. there is some sort of distortion in certain angles. i did a shoot, and my model's face became a bit longer (parang alien ang dating :D) but not too exxagerrated.

So if it became longer, did that mean the face looked thinner or fatter?

can't have fatter for female shots! haha

IMHO, the 50mm f1.8 is a better portrait lens than the 17-40. at almost 1/10th of the cost. on a 1.6x crop camera, i mean. NOT for the full-frame/film bodies.

So if it became longer, did that mean the face looked thinner or fatter?

can't have fatter for female shots! haha

hehhe. sorry. shoul have clarified. i agree that faces get distorted.

in my case, the faces became a it thinner, due to the elongation. :)