# 17-40 F4L or Wide Angle Prime?



## BokChoiTV (Apr 19, 2013)

Well, the title says it all, that's my debate.
More than likely a prime under 40mm that has IS (like the 28mm F2 IS for example.)
ORRRR the 17-40 F4L.
Being used mainly for video (on tripods and dollys) and on a 5D MkIII.


----------



## Leejo (Apr 19, 2013)

I would have thought Primes.
Advantages
1) IS availability
2) f-stop advantage
3) the 17-40 is not parfocal as far as I recall - so you would need to refocus if zooming
4) normally lighter in weight
3) No tempation to zoom 

Versus - can't zoom...

Can't recall if the 17-40 is weather sealed - could be an advantage if required


----------



## K3nt (Apr 19, 2013)

It's an L-lens so weather sealing is present. 

As pointed out... Better f-stop performance for primes but you have to zoom with your legs and not the lens.
I don't do video so can't say more than that.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2013)

It seems like it would depend on the DOF you want, or if you are shooting in low light. I haven't done much video with a DSLR. Mainly I've used my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, got some footage of my nephews shooting firecrackers after sunset.

A zoom is a lot more versatile...that's why you use a zoom, whether it's for stills or video. Weather sealing is a plus.


----------



## bahula (Apr 20, 2013)

What focal length(s) are you going to be shooting at? Shooting stills with this combo at the wide end, there is substantial vignetting...easily corrected in post, but I have no idea if that would be an option for video.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Apr 23, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Well, the title says it all, that's my debate.
> More than likely a prime under 40mm that has IS (like the 28mm F2 IS for example.)
> ORRRR the 17-40 F4L.
> Being used mainly for video (on tripods and dollys) and on a 5D MkIII.



If you're planning to use the lens mainly for video and will be using tripods and dollys, why are you concerned about having IS? For this type of use, I'd be looking at the Zeiss ZE primes.


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 24, 2013)

Rumor has it that the declicked Samyang or Rokinon 35mm is pretty good for film. I don't have any personal experience but the ratings are very high.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 24, 2013)

K3nt said:


> It's an L-lens so weather sealing is present.



well L does not mean per se weather sealed. just as info.


----------



## obach (Apr 24, 2013)

Leejo said:


> I would have thought Primes.
> Advantages
> 1) IS availability
> 2) f-stop advantage
> ...


Hi !
I have the 17-40 myself in addition to the 40mm pancake.
If you choose the 17-40 both 1 and 2 above is right.
3 is wrong. Once focused, you can zoom as much as you like and it's still sharp. And sharp it is!
4 is right. But the 17-40 isn't heavy. The weight is IMO not an issue with that zoom
The 17-40 is absolutely weather sealed as long as you use a filter. One of the lightest and cheapest weather sealed lenses there is.
IS with a tripod is in fact negative. The rule of thumb is to switch it off when you use a tripod... 

About the DOF as mentioned by others. A wide angle (17mm) will be sharp from 1m to infinite on f4 - more or less. If you want the good video DOF look, you must at least take your video on 40mm. 
The pancake on the 5dmk3 is a very good match for video, indeed!

Happy shopping!


----------



## hamada (Apr 24, 2013)

obach said:


> 3 is wrong. Once focused, you can zoom as much as you like and it's still sharp. And sharp it is!



well as long as you only look at the center at least....


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Apr 24, 2013)

I used to have the 17-40 and really enjoyed using it, it was quick and quiet to focus and it's build inspired confidence.

However, it wasn't the sharpest lens I'd ever used. Not poor, just not exceptional, even on my aps_c kit.

For video I am a complete advocate of f2.8 zooms, fast primes also have their place.

If you want the same range, IS (why? Video needs to be supported somehow for contiguously smooth footage, negating the need for IS, particularly at this focal length range) and aren't bothered about the fast sperture then you could do a lot worse than the 18-55 kit zooms (on aps-c)


----------



## alphajim (Apr 24, 2013)

hamada said:


> obach said:
> 
> 
> > 3 is wrong. Once focused, you can zoom as much as you like and it's still sharp. And sharp it is!
> ...


I get flamed whenever I mention it, but my copy was none too sharp either. I've got a Tamron 17-50 for crop that is it's optical equal even if the build is rougher.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> The 17-40 is rubbish once you get half way to the edge/corners on a full frame camera and the 16-35 is no better.
> 
> If you want wide angle on full frame, a 24mm prime would be good. If you want wider than that then you need to go manual focus with a Leica or something.



Cant help on the 17-40 never owned or used it, I have the 16-35f/2.8 L II, and although I wouldn't class it as Rubbish, I do find it's a lot less than perfect, although I have used it in my Underwater Photography & there it is Rubbish. I agree if you want the best WA experience, get yourself a WA Prime, I currently have the 14/24/35 as well as the 17 & 24 TSE, I would suggest getting the Canon 24f/1.4 L II, you get a superb WA lens that has brilliant Low Light capability and is Sharp pretty well everywhere. Good Luck.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Apr 25, 2013)

hamada said:


> obach said:
> 
> 
> > 3 is wrong. Once focused, you can zoom as much as you like and it's still sharp. And sharp it is!
> ...



Right that is. Mid-frame is still quite okay but the corners quite suck, even when you stop down to f/8 or f/11. I sold mine and got a Samyang 14mm again, it's another world.


----------

