![]() There isn’t a great deal to write home about here. I went through a phase of shooting a time-lapse for Instagram every time I shot something new. Now that I work more with food, it isn’t really used for anything more than time-lapse work and behind the scenes images. But being able to really suck in loads of the background or get loads in the frame while distorting the face is pretty useful at the right time. Using the 17mm focal length gave me some cool creative options, although it is clearly a bit of a one-trick pony, so it didn’t come out that often. Once I started to shoot more than just weddings, I ventured into portraits. And for me, 17mm is the reason I purchased this lens. I am not a big fan of zoom lenses, as my brain can’t work fast enough to calculate the exact focal length I need for a situation, so when I do use them, it is either as wide as they go or as tight as they go. And I pretty much exclusively used it at 17mm. To begin with, I used it to photograph weddings. The rear gasket keeps the shutter dry, and the body of the lens is pretty well weather-sealed once a filter is applied, although this obviously has its limitations. Apart from that, the lens snaps into focus in the darkest of rooms, and I haven’t ever had to do any microadjusting on my cameras with it, unlike almost every other Canon lens I have ever purchased. There is the odd time in backlit situations where you have to mask part of the lens with your hand in order to grab focus, but I feel that this is perfectly acceptable for a lens this wide. The lens really shines in this department. ![]() The focus ring has occasionally become a bit gritty when I have shot in the rain for four or more hours unprotected, but after a 24-hour dry-out it is usually fine. The lens is very light and plastic-feeling however, after 10 years of use in the rain, sand, being bashed into walls at weddings, and generally mistreated, it looks pretty much the same as the day I purchased it. This was the next lens that I added to my bag shortly after, I also purchased a 70-200mm lens to cover the other end of the spectrum. At the time, I owned 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm lenses. It was a great lens for storytelling and adding drama to images. ![]() The possibilities that this lens opened up at 17mm when taking photographs in the bride's or groom's house and in the evenings during the party were amazing. I worked with a long-standing and well-equipped photographer in the area who, among other lenses, owned the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens. Like many of us, this seemed like the easiest way to make money with a camera. ![]() When I began in photography, I was shooting weddings. I have also rented better lenses of a similar nature when I knew that this lens woouldn't be up to scratch for the particular client. I have had a great time working with this lens, and I have shot some billboards, editorials, and point of sale images with it, and my clients have always been happy when I have used it. So, it will probably be popped into one of my kit bags and used for the odd time-lapse or more probably left to gather up dust. My work simply no longer requires this lens as of this weekend. I am certainly not going to be upgrading the lens. I simply don’t need it anymore, so although this is a lifetime review, this is actually the first time that I am retiring a lens rather than upgrading. I am going to start off with the reason that I am retiring the lens first, rather than why I purchased it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |