Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?

[mihast]

I use 17-40 f/4L on 5Dmk2.
As other posters already stated, it's a sharp lens in the centre with very soft corners and bad distortion. Surprisingly, I find the two weaknesses having synergistic effect for me. By fixing the distortion, corners get eliminated from the resulting image and the result is decently sharp. If you can live with ~18(19)-40 f/4 lens I can reccommend it to you. Use it at f/8 for best results, though.

[dgarman]

I also had my camera on a tripod with the 17-40 mounted and the wind blew it over.  It was actually worse since i was on a slight hill and it fell lens first and skidded down an embankment.

Result - the lens had no damage at all (this was several years ago), and works perfectly.  The lens hood is scratched quite a bit, and I'm a big believer in lens hoods, and of course watching how I set up the tripod more closely.

My experience is that this lens is incredibly well built.  The operation is silk smooth.

[Ryan708]

Friend of mine dropped his 40D/17-40 down a flight of concrete stairs and his lens broke in half in the middle and made a big mess. canon put humpy dumpty back together for ~300 bucks and he says its better than it ever was.

[bykes]

I'm using this lens on my 5d3.  It's great.  I was worried about the sharpness from all the reviews, but its not as bad as I thought I would be.  It's focal range is really meant for a full frame sensor though.  I wouldn't pair it with a crop body as the main walk around lens.  It does distort alot on the wide end, but thats what wide angle lenses do.  It can be managed with software. 

[raptor3x]

The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. Like everyone else mentioned very sharp at f8 and up. In terms of image quality i would rate it par to my 135 f2, even sometimes sharper. but i have to disagree with the build quality. and this is the main reason why I think it cost lesser than other L lenses.

my camera was attached to 17-40 on a tripod and it accidentally fell onto a rock (distance from camera fall to rock about 5 feet)  resulting in a broken camera's lcd and due to impact my lens rear mount was also broken. In my opinion, due to that impact with any solid build lens, the rear mount should not break. Unfortunately the 17-40 lens did not stand the impact. So i gave it a 5/10 for built quality. I would not judge a lens' built quality by the looks and feels, until you actually experience the impact or any unwanted damages to it.

I'm pretty sure almost all  lenses are designed to break off at the lens mount in such a situation.  Much better to have all that energy dissipated through snapping off the lens mount, a relatively easy part to fix, than to leave it to shatter the lens elements inside.   

[callaesthetics]

I don't use this lens much but i like it a lot when i need it. My 17-40 took a really nasty drop once. It was in my camera sling bag, i had forgotten to close the bag and for some dumb reason i decided to jump and take a picture, the lens came flying out and smashed into the concrete floor. It was the worse sound ever, the cap flew off, a piece of plastic ring in the front came off but i was able to push it back into the lens. Upon testing the lens, it worked just fine with hardly any signs of damage. It's one tough lens.

[kaihp]

It's focal range is really meant for a full frame sensor though.  I wouldn't pair it with a crop body as the main walk around lens.

The 17-40mm was the first lens I bought in my 'digital era' and it was used as my main walk-around lens for quite some years on my 10D and later 50D (more than 75% of my pictures were with the 17-40mm, until I started shooting motorcycle racing).
Now that I have FF, the 24-70mm is more of an all-round lens than the 17-40 (but it was exactly the right lens in the Lower and Upper Antelope Slot Canyons as well as at Horseshoe Bend).

[ud4steve]

I think it's a great lens.  It's the lens I keep on my camera most of the time and I get a lot of fantastic images plus it has weather sealing, something the EF-S lenses don't which is nice when you get caught in those sudden downpours while out shooting landscapes.  Just make sure you put a filter on the front to complete the weather sealing.  Overall I have never had any issues with it whether it be in rain, snow, or blowing sand, it holds up well and is definitely a lens I will be keeping for a long time.

[IIIHobbs]

I have owned the 17-40L, 16-35L and EFS10-22.

On a 60D or Rebel, I think the EFS10-22 is the best landscape lens. Great build quality, very good perfrmance and gives you an effective focal length of 16-35; excellent for landscape or tight interior shots.

The 17-40L was my first L series lens, I used it exclusively for two years with very good results. I changed I the 16-35L for the extra stop. At one point I purchased the EFS10-22 and did a lot of outdoor landscape with it. Images were very sharp, color and contrast were very good.

More here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[insanitybeard]

I use the 17-40 on a crop camera as a 'standard' walkaround lens and overall am happy with it. Yes the 17-55 is better optically for the crop sensor and f2.8 with IS, and has more range but I wanted a weather sealed lens to complement the 7D. Compared to my EF-S 10-22 I much prefer the build of the 17-40, the focus ring is far wider and smoother and the auto/manual focus switch is better quality. Although the range is limited compared to some alternatives it is still 'equivalent' to approx. 27-64mm on full frame so not a million miles away from a full frame 24-70mm lens. The barrel distortion is worse at 17mm than the 10-22 at 17mm. Overall, my experience of the lens on a crop camera is very positive. Barrel distortion is noticeable at 17mm and there is some softness out in the extreme corners (more noticeable with landscapes IMO) but CA's are usually well controlled and contrast is good.

Of course, if you are planning to use the lens on a full frame camera much of the above will not apply - from what I have read, the performance of the lens at the wide end suffers until stopped well down but I see you have your camera listed as a 60D. Just my thoughts.

 Paul

[STEMI_RN]

Thanks for all the tips guys.  I will also look into the 10-22,  but I think I'd rather have a bit more versatility that I would probably get with the 17-40.  I'll give them both a few days to try.

[vlim]

Coupled with a 5D mark III, do you recommand the 17-40 F4 L or another lens like a used 16-35 F2.8  L I (i can't afford the version II) ?

[yablonsky]

I use the 17-40 L with my 5D2. It's a great combination for landscape.
I love it. The 17mm are really wide! And you often really need them.

With regard to IQ the 16-35 I is no good alternative to the 17-40 L.

[Dylan777]

I'm thinking about purchasing a 17-40 f/4L USM.  Anyone out there with one of these have any reasons why I should or should not go through with it.  It will be my first L glass.  After this I plan on a 70-200 f/2.8. 

I'm mostly a landscape/nature shooter so I don't really need it any faster (usually shoot f/8-f11 on a tripod). And I was looking at my last 6 months of shots and most of my keepers are under 50mm focal length anyway. Every review said this lens gives the best IQ for the money (and sometimes better than more expensive lenses).

If there is something else I should get in the sub $1k range, I'm open to suggestions. I'm looking for any real world experiences from this lens.  I'm just hoping to buy before the $100 rebate ends.

Thoughts?

Go for it. I have 16-35 II and I'm thinking selling it soon and replace it with 17-40. Since I don't use f2.8 to f5.6 much in landscape.

[EOBeav]

I didn't really appreciate what my 17-40 could do until I moved up from a Rebel (1.6x crop) to a FF 5DmkII.  If landscapes are your thing, then this is the glass to get. My own photoblog has examples from it sprinkled throughout.