Lens review:
Decided to take the plunge and buy the 17-40mm L lens, and the 24-105 L this weekend...
...just kidding. Not that rich!
Alex very kindly lent me both his 24-105 AND his 17-40. Have to say, I thought the 17 was going to be 'too much' and was seriously considering getting the 20mm non-L lens soon. Now I'm rethinking.
The 16-35 would be really nice (F2.8 versus F4) but $1600 versus $750... *sigh*
And, now I need to borrow/rent the 24-70 to see if that is much of an improvement over the 24-105, which when at 24mm, has pretty horrific barrel distortion, I gotta say - see next.
First up, the 17-40 at 24mm:
Not PERFECT, but pretty darn close. Not put them up yet, but even at 17, it holds up, barrel-distortion wise - impressed.
Next up, and it's hard to describe quite how bad the barrel distortion is until you look through the viewfinder and move about. Alex, you probably don't see this that much with the crop sensor, but on FF, it's pretty obvious. Frankly, am surprised this is the 'kit' lens:
I put in little marks and you can see how far the distortion goes.
Now, you could legitimately argue that it isn't barrel distortion at all, the 'offset' parts of the line are closer, ergo they appear bent up, which is how we actually see things, but they did a fine job compensating for that with the 17-40, not so much with the 24-105. The 17-40 might be 'fake' but it sure makes buildings look prettier.
Convergence, yes (not a lot you can do about that except use a tilt-shift I guess) but no barrelling - this is at 17mm. Oh, and F4. Still pretty sharp
That said, the CA on the 17-40 was pretty bad at F4 in bright sunlight, see next:
Then again, that's a 100% crop - it IS noticeable as a pretty bad halo, but I was also asking a lot - F4 in bright sunlight (I was dicking with short DOF shots of flowers before taking this one) so you could argue it's an unrealistic edge-case. Stopping it down to F8 made it go away, and it wasn't a problem with less light and less contrasty edges - basically went away completely.
Conclusion is - might not get the 20mm non L, and might save my pennies for the 17-40.
Will try the 24-70 and see how the barrel distortion is on that before I pull the trigger - anyone got one I can borrow please?
For now the 85 F1.8 might be my go-to in the studio, with my FF 50 and 28-105 zoomed in, where it performs OK.
And for now, tempted to get the Sigma 18-55, which is on sale for $199 at BHPhoto (!). Just so I can take landscapes. It reviews really well, so... that I can absorb in a month, especially if I ditch it for $150 after a few months, $750, not so much.
Thanks for letting me use your sexy gear Alex! I do have to say tho, the QUALITY of image from the 24-105 was really nice when zoomed in just a tiny bit... but not sure I could live with that distortion wide-open, at least on a FF body.
Since my 40D has a 1.6 crop I don't have to worry about some of the stuff you guys do with a FF camera. When I eventually pick up a 5D or another FF body, chances are I will also look at some of the L prime lenses, but for now a 40D with a good set of L zoom lenses seems to be a decent compromise. The quality may not be quite up to par with a FF body and prime lenses but I'm taking A LOT more pics with the convenience of zoom lenses. It's a trade-off I can live with for now.
