17-40mm advice please!

[Marsu42]

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is about the same price and works on FF.
Very sharp (even more than 16-35 II) but lens flare isn't as well controlled...

The flare control is not to be underestimated on uwa, the 17-40 is said to be even better than the 16-35 here, and I have shot against many light sources with my 17-40 and never saw a flare. With the Tokina 16-28 it's quite the reverse, you'll see halos all over the place - there was a recent thread with sample shots on this.

[Zv]

I made the jump to FF last year, sold my 10-22 and bought the 17-40 as my UWA. I was a bit apprehensive at first as I loved my 10-22 but I have to say the 17-40 is sharper and has better contrast. And it's built like to last. Sure, corners are a bit soft wide open at 17mm but for landscapes you wouldn't use it at f/4. The 35 - 40mm range is really nice IMO which makes for a pretty decent walkaround on either crop or FF. Depends on what you shoot of course.

I also have the 17-55 which is a very useful lens, though I don't entirely agree with the price! Buy it second hand then sell it once you move to FF if you go that route. The IS on the lens is actually pretty good, I can get about 3 stops from it. Very useful for night landscape and urban shots where run and gun style is pref over tripods. Wide open performance is surprisingly good too, quite sharp. A great lens for portraits and occasional landscapes. It is built well but it still makes me nervous when it dangling at my side on a r-strap. Lens creeps like a mofo.

If you are really into the wide angle perspective 24mm won't cut it on FF. To be honest I think 17mm is not wide enough for my tastes but it gets the job done.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose.  If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II.  If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well.  From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens.  Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well.  It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.


Chase the Sun by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Winter's Splendor #4 - Ripples by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

The recommendations on getting the 24-105L in a kit when you go FF is a very good one.  I think that getting a used 17-40L is a smart move for now, as it is a better focal length for crop in the meantime.  If you decide to move it down the road, you will likely get just about everything out of it that you paid for it.

I also really, really love my Tamron 24-70VC.  I moved my 24-105L after owning the Tamron for a few months.  It has become my go-to general purpose lens.  It works well for landscape


Road to Perdition by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

But also has very smooth transition to out of focus like a prime:


Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Autumn Gold by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

It is very flare resistant, too.

[Niterider]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose.  If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II.  If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well.  From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens.  Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well.  It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.

Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.   

[bluegreenturtle]

I recently went through this and ultimately decided on the Tokina 16-28.  Time will tell if it's a good choice.  But it was the same price (or actually a bit cheaper) than the 17-40 which I just couldn't bring myself to buy.  My almost sole focus is video though, so it's in that context.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose.  If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II.  If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well.  From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens.  Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well.  It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.

Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.

It is a matter of preference, for sure, but fortunately these days in Lightroom you can control saturation and luminosity on the individual color channels.  It gives you a lot more processing flexibility without leaving LR

[Sith Zombie]

Wow yeah, great pics. I think I'll go for the 17-40 for now but that Tamron is looking awesome too 

[Niterider]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose.  If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II.  If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well.  From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens.  Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well.  It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.

Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.

It is a matter of preference, for sure, but fortunately these days in Lightroom you can control saturation and luminosity on the individual color channels.  It gives you a lot more processing flexibility without leaving LR

Definitely, I am just used to seeing people adjust the vibrance slider and never touch the HSL individual color channels. Since vibrance adjust the least saturated colors, it is often overdone and the effect is apparent in the transitions of colors (it looks very harsh). This is more of a generalization about LR4 edited photos. Your pictures definitely looked balanced and not overdone in terms of color management though. Keep doing what your doing!

[Rocky]

I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting  and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.

[Marsu42]

17-55mm may be a better deal.

In general +1 (and I'd advice people to look at the 15-85, too) - unless you want a sealed lens with L build quality, after my non-L 100mm macro broke down twice I don't underestimate that point anymore.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting  and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.

I would say that if you were talking crop only, the 17-55 is definitely a better choice.  It gives you far more creative options and a stronger focal length that moves into portrait lengths, too.  If the goal is to move to FF in the foreseeable future, the 17-40L becomes the better choice for obvious reasons.

[pgsdeepak]

I bought a 17-40mm a couple of months back for my 40D and I have plans to go FF in a month or two. I rented the lens a few times in the past as well. I always got good results with the lens (of course according to my standards, and I am not a pro, just a hobbyist). I tried 16-35 L II and EF-S 15-85. I could not utilize the 16-35 properly, so it potential is still a mystery to me. 15-85 is excellent with its range going from 15 to 85mm. IQ was also great. But I like the 17-40s color and contrast better (just a personal preference). And its my only lens with a red ring, so lets say, that also factored in to my purchase decision 

17-40 samples below

[Jim K]

I would get the 24-105 as a kit lens when you get your FF body. As others have said, you can't beat the discount price when the 24-105 comes in the kit. That's what I did.

I like my 17-40 as an UWA when I am shooting FF landscapes. Stopped down to f/8-11 it is as good as the 16-35.

[Skirball]

I made the jump to FF last year, sold my 10-22 and bought the 17-40 as my UWA. I was a bit apprehensive at first as I loved my 10-22 but I have to say the 17-40 is sharper and has better contrast. And it's built like to last. Sure, corners are a bit soft wide open at 17mm but for landscapes you wouldn't use it at f/4. 

How are the corners compared to the 10-22?  I'm in a similar situation, having recently picked up a 6D.  My 10-22 was my workhorse, as the only professional work I do is RE & architecture.  I loved the thing, with the exception of CA at 10mm.  I figure I'll just rent a 17-40 and 16-35 for my next job and see for myself, but figured I'd ask since you've had the first hand experience...  and liked your 10-22 as well.

[Rui Brito]

I know it´s a bit off topic, but...
EF-S 17-85 broken as on this link?
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/lenses/Replacing-Aperture-Cable-in-17-85mm-Lens.html
It can be repaired, I´ve repaired mine. Time consuming, but cheaper than a new lens. Not for the fainted heart though.