August 20, 2014, 10:56:30 PM

Author Topic: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?  (Read 12517 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2012, 10:42:09 AM »
I've said this before but this lens is a champion for the price. I agree at f8 it's damned sharp and for most landscapes that's what you'd be shooting at. I also hand hold f8 iso200 city / urban shots with it too and rarely get blurry images. The reciprocal guide for shutter speed relative to FL invariably means sharp shots. On FF its an excellent commonsense landscape lens which also happens to perform more than ably.

The lens has it's strengths... you just need to work around the weaknesses. Like someone said it is punchy and contrasty... It sure is... I shot this walking within a crowd being jostled about....
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2012, 10:42:09 AM »

mitch.o

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2012, 10:47:14 AM »
I'm thinking of buying a 17-40 too. This post has been really helpful. I have a T2i, but I plan on getting a 6D in December (should it actually come out in December... So help me Canon...).
I'm reading about all the "flaws" this lens has, but then I realized that many of them are corrected automatically in-camera (i.e. distortion, vignetting). Though I don't know how well this is done. Anyone have experience with this?

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2012, 11:11:00 AM »
I wouldn't advise the 17-40L, it's not wide enough (17mm = 27mm on a FF).


Factually Incorrect.

17mm is 17mm on FF   :P
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

killswitch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2012, 11:28:35 AM »
Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2012, 11:46:37 AM »
Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.


Certainly more than 1mm is on a 134 vs 135mm  :-)

Not exactly what you are looking for but here TDP dude compared 16mm to 20mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

« Last Edit: November 14, 2012, 11:53:57 AM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

perceptionist

  • Guest
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2012, 11:47:18 AM »
17-40 is a great UWA zoom on FF for the price. Slightly soft in the corners, but acceptable and distortion is not that bad. It also takes 77mm filters, which is great since many zooms at longer FLs do the same. I do prefer the 16-35 II however due to being faster, sharper at the corners, better microcontrast, better distortion control and creates beautiful starburst. If you do any night work such as the milky way that extra 1mm and extra stop is definitely beneficial. It's also a great PJ lens as well. The main downfalls are of course price and many are not a fan of having a 82mm thread regardless of what filter system you use. Of course the main thing you need to consider is what you shoot and the intended use of the lens.

rahkshi007

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »
Best value of L lens, it 80% on my 5dmarkii .. the lens is sharp after f5.6,i like its lightweight, very good for landscape photographer as you need to climb the hill for several miles.  Here my sample shot from the lens last week have a trip to Malaysia rainforest..
5d mark iii, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm f1.2L, 24-70mm f2.8L, 17-40 f4L, 600ex-rt

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2012, 01:39:06 PM »

Minh Nguyen

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2012, 01:49:38 PM »
The 17-40mm is a great lens. I don't use it all the time but when I do I'm glad I have it. You might be able to find that lens on FM Forum for about $700 or less used. Its one of those lenses that generally don't get beaten up too badly and you know the guys on FM are generally photo nuts who take good care of their gear. I actually got my 17-40mm brand new for $550. Can you believe that? It was during a time when Canada's exchange rate vs. the USD helped me save 25 cents to the dollar.

Can't think of any reasons not to get a 17-40mm.

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2012, 03:21:05 PM »
It depends to a great degree on what you shoot and what you shoot with. I had it for quite some time and used to get a lot of use out of it, in fact it was the mainstay of my landscapes for a few years. However, that was with the 400D/40D, but as soon as I switched to ful frame for landscapes, I used it less and less. I was finding that it was quite soft in the corners and while sharpness isn't always everything when it comes to landscapes (it does help though, but impact is often a bigger factor), differences in sharpness across the frame tend to be more noticeable than general softness. For images with a lot of sky, it wasn't too bad, as there wasn't any fine detail in the top corners where depth of field also played its part more, but if there were trees for example, the leaves trended to become a mush. Also, for what I shoot, I found it too wide and started using my 24-105 more often (until I spoilt myself with the 24 f/1.4 MkII). Also, on full frame, you start getting issues with filter adaptors being visible in frame when stacking, so it is more difficult to use grad filters and CPL in different planes. It's ok if in the same plane though.
For the money, it is very good value, but I would suggest thinking about the reasons for wanting it, particularly if you shoot full frame and then make the decision as to whether the weaknesses of the lens are something you can live with. Having said that, I only lost around £80 on mine when I sold it a couple of months ago, so not too shabby a rental cost for four years.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1206
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2012, 03:54:02 PM »
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?

I was originally going to be saving for the 16-35mm L lens....and while searching Craigslist, I found a young man selling the 17-40mmL for about $500 or a touch less.

I'd asked folks here on the forum about it (you can search for that thread)....and they all indicated it was a good deal.

I promptly met the guy at a coffee shop...and bought it.
This was my first used lens purchase.
I've had a lot of fun with this lens, both for stills and video. Sure, I'd love to have had the f/2.8 on the 16-35, but this lens has been fun.

I used it to get some very cool time lapse sequences from a camping trip I was on, was nice and wide to get the full camp of all of us moving about...and with the 5D3, even as it went into night, shots were nice.

I'm a noob...and not sure what's going on with this lens...but I find that shooting it  as opposed to the kit 24-105mmL lens which is also f/4...that somehow the 17-40 seems to have better low light performance. Do wide angle lenses gather in more light than non wide angle lenses or something?

I thought f/4 meant f/4 and pretty  much same performance at same light levels....?

Anyway, I'm rambling, but if you have the cash, and want a nice lens for a reasonable price, I can tell you I like mine.

In the future, I'll likely upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8 to get a bit faster lens, but I've got others on the list before that (70-200mm L mk II IS USM, and the 50mm f/1.2).....so this will suffice for my wide angle needs for now.

I'd suggest you keep an eye out on craigslist....see what comes up. The Canon sales on lenses lasts, I believe...through end of Dec....so, search around a bit and see what kind of deal you can find out there.

HTH,

cayenne

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 589
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2012, 04:02:43 PM »
Based on your 2nd post, looks like you are using a APS-C camera. 17-40mm is a great lens for APS-C. Some poster may say that the 17-55 IS 2.8 is a better lens with about 80% more on the price tag. You will gain 1 stop speed and IS with slight increase in CA.  I have used the 17-40mm for more than 7 years on a APS-C body. It is my main lens.

Halfrack

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2012, 04:21:21 PM »
I wouldn't advise the 17-40L, it's not wide enough (17mm = 27mm on a FF).


Factually Incorrect.

17mm is 17mm on FF   :P

Better put, 17mm is 17 on FF, and 27mm on APS-C

That said the 17-40f4L and the 70-200f4L are both 'just do it' lenses.  $500-650 used, and will hold their value.  It's a great way for a photog to experience L stuff.  It'll work really well and you may never need to upgrade.  Then again, an upgrade may be a need to get a prime that's much brighter (24/35 f1.4) or wider (14mm f2.8).
"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala

theqspeaks

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2012, 04:52:38 PM »
Setting aside the 17-40L, if the OP is a landscape photographer who usually shoots around f/8, I recommend forgetting about the 70-200mm f/2.8L and instead look at the 70-200mm f/4L IS.  The f/4 IS is super light, super sharp at all focal lengths and wide open, and super easy to use.  If you're not going to use that extra stop of aperture on the f/2.8L, you'll definitely appreciate the smaller size and the lighter weight (1.25 lbs less) of the f/4L IS.  That'll help when you're carrying your gear on your back as you hike in to get a shot.  Plus, the f/4L IS is a hundred bucks cheaper than the f/2.8L, and it adds a fantastic IS that gives it a huge advantage for when you don't have a tripod handy. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2012, 04:52:38 PM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4450
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2012, 05:46:53 PM »
Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.

not much in fact the 17-40 range would be nicer and more flexable
however I love 2.8 on the 16-35 and the 16-35 is sharper at wide apertures too, for me the 16-35 f2.8L II is my ideal travel lens
APS-H Fanboy

gmrza

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2012, 06:04:28 PM »
Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.


not much in fact the 17-40 range would be nicer and more flexable
however I love 2.8 on the 16-35 and the 16-35 is sharper at wide apertures too, for me the 16-35 f2.8L II is my ideal travel lens


The flip-side to that being that, if you want to shoot at small apertures, there is not much between the two lenses - at f/8 and smaller, they are similar in terms of sharpness.  If you are predominantly shooting landscapes, then weight and price probably weigh in favour of the 17-40mm.
As a walkabout lens on APS-C, I am now starting to lean more towards the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - the loss of wide angle is made up for by better sharpness at f/4 and the IS.

Some examples using the 17-40mm on APS-C (7D) - at 17mm, if I recall correctly:



and full frame - 5DII - at 19mm, if I recall correctly:

Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2012, 06:04:28 PM »