To Catch A Thief

[Loupey]

The day after I shot the Baited Bluejays, I tried again but with my 17-40mm and from about 1 1/2 feet away. Used my 10meter cable. Similar setup to the shots I posted a while back.

The thieves kept the jays from returning. So I figured I'd at least capture them. Purely for entertainment value. Guess I should go out and take some "serious" images soon

[Bevb]

Lol! thats great, no foods safe with squirrels about, is the 17-40mm a wideangle lense that you would recommend?, i have my 18-55mm which i think is good, but this 17-40mm keeps cropping up in conversations, and i would like to have another wideangle that fits my 1DMKllN.

[cultex]

I have thieves at my house too, but in the form of rats. I like squirrels MUCH better.

[Copy_Kot]

LOL, those are great Loupey... that squirrel looks like he knows he is guilty of something.

[Loupey]

Lol! thats great, no foods safe with squirrels about, is the 17-40mm a wideangle lense that you would recommend?, i have my 18-55mm which i think is good, but this 17-40mm keeps cropping up in conversations, and i would like to have another wideangle that fits my 1DMKllN.

Bev, the short answer to your question: yes and no but sometimes yes and often no

The 17-40mm was my first “L” zoom and introduction to digital photography. Before that I was an anal “prime-only” film shooter. So I thought this little zoom was a great performer for the price. However, I feel that its limitations are becoming overbearing. Resolution is not what you might expect as compared to, say, the 70-200mm. The f/4 is gruesomely slow if you plan to use it as a walk-about lens especially for existing-light photography. If I had to start over, I’d probably buy a 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.4 (still might).

I’ll continue to use it for “expendable” moments like this without a filter, mist shots at Niagara Falls, and the like. I works OK when I shoot home interiors when just about everything is shot at around f/16 at 4 seconds and nothing in the frame moves. Not conditions we see in the field.

I’d recommend that you use your existing zoom with your 20D and get a prime WA for your 1DmkIIN when you find a specific focal length that you use most often.

[Loupey]

Cultex, rats are just angry squirrels Thanks for looking!

Copy, I was hoping they came across that way. To me, shooting images that make people smile/laugh are 2nd only (and just only) to those that show off nature's beauty. Thanks as always.

[paulnj]

funny images and a great way to pass time

[Bevb]

Bev, the short answer to your question: yes and no but sometimes yes and often no

The 17-40mm was my first “L” zoom and introduction to digital photography. Before that I was an anal “prime-only” film shooter. So I thought this little zoom was a great performer for the price. However, I feel that its limitations are becoming overbearing. Resolution is not what you might expect as compared to, say, the 70-200mm. The f/4 is gruesomely slow if you plan to use it as a walk-about lens especially for existing-light photography. If I had to start over, I’d probably buy a 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.4 (still might).

I’ll continue to use it for “expendable” moments like this without a filter, mist shots at Niagara Falls, and the like. I works OK when I shoot home interiors when just about everything is shot at around f/16 at 4 seconds and nothing in the frame moves. Not conditions we see in the field.

I’d recommend that you use your existing zoom with your 20D and get a prime WA for your 1DmkIIN when you find a specific focal length that you use most often.

Thanks Loupey for your advice i think what you have suggested is the right direction for me, i already have the 50mm 1-1.8mm but hardly use it but its obviosuly not an L series.