August 29, 2014, 06:12:02 PM

Author Topic: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L  (Read 23558 times)

Andy_Hodapp

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Andy Hodapp
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2013, 09:23:54 PM »
It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40.  I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i.  Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock.  Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them.  I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off.  Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride


Beartooth Highway


My old Scout


Grain elevator


Tiny world of my house


And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 08:59:35 AM by Andy_Hodapp »
Canon 5D MKII, Canon 17-40mm F/4L, Canon 50mm 1.8 II, Helios 44M-4 58mm F/2, Sigma 105mm EX DG Macro F/2.8, Canon 200mm F/2.8L, Yongnuo YN-560 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2013, 09:23:54 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2013, 12:02:01 AM »
Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use.  They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture

I have to take great exception to that. Shoot a 17 or 24 MkII TS-E with correctly applied tilt at f5.6 or f8, the sharpness and clarity will blow your mind, especially in big prints.

Take it if you must, I wasn't discussing TS lenses here, and comparing them to lenses with no movements, really isn't a fair comparison...especially if you are engaging the movements.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2013, 12:05:08 AM »
It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40.  I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i.  Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock.  Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them.  I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off.  Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride


Beartooth Highway


My old Scout


Gain elevator


Tiny world of my house


And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean


Nice shots, although I don't care for the sky in the second shot...and the last shot definitely was not worth the camera being knocked over on its tripod...glad it wasn't damaged!  Was it just slightly off balance, or did the wind or water knock it over?

pulseimages

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2013, 12:40:49 AM »
It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40.  I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i.  Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock.  Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them.  I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off.  Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride


Beartooth Highway


My old Scout


Gain elevator


Tiny world of my house


And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean


Great images but what's a Gain Elevator?  ;)

nicku

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2013, 02:35:46 AM »
oooo Yes....  :D

17-40 f/4L was my first L lens; i bought it in 2008.... I had used this lens on multiple bodies ( 400D, 40D, 7D...) in every possible condition, from the dessert powder like sand, heavy rain to the mountain peaks in winter at -25 degrees C. It never blocks ,fill with sand,water ice.... is really  a workhorse.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2013, 04:39:02 AM »
I bought the 17-40 f4L when I had my 400D to replace the pretty woeful 18-55 II.

It did a good job at that.  I liked the build.  I liked the feel of the movements.  I liked the idea of the weather sealing (although my body was not) I liked being able to use filters properly, I liked the speed and quietness of the AF and the images were GOOD.

BETTER than the 18-55 II.

But not better than the 18-55 IS I got with my 550D.
I had a 7D by this point as well (between the 400D and 550D) which I had bought primarily for video use and the f4 aperture was limiting for me (in video you want to use as low an ISO as you can, your shutter speed is ideally 1/50th, so an f4 is siginficantly less flexible in lower light)

I sold the 17-40 and held on to 18-55IS until a sigma f2.8 zoom came up.  Which was better for my video work.

Maybe the 17-40 is a different propostion on full frame.  For me it wasn't an exceptional lens, and the things I remember most fondly about it weren't particularly the images.

Gadger

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2013, 05:20:40 AM »
Thank you for the review  ;), but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope  ::)

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these  :-[ 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2013, 05:20:40 AM »

Hector1970

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2013, 08:48:14 AM »
These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
I had a choice between this and the 16-35 l and I went for 17-40 for reasons of price.
I wouldn't say the lens is the greatest ever but I think it's pretty good.
You can take very fine photographs with it. It's so a wide field of view that lack of sharpness in the corner isn't the end of the world. You can take a pretty sharp looking photograph with it.
Alot of photos nowadays are seen on an iPhone from Flickr and Facebook and you definately won't show up flaws then. It takes filters and this is very important for me for landscape photography. The fact it's 77mm is handy in terms of adapters (and lost lens caps).
Maybe my version is better than others (or more compatible with the tolerances in my camera (5D MIII).
I would have to say I am fairly happy with it.
I have a 24 TSE II and I can use that to combine 3 shots for a fairly wide angle view with shift but it's much more convenient to do it with a 17-40mm straight off. The 17-40mm may not be as sharp as the 24 TSE II but for me it's sharp enough and with Live view I can ensure what I definately want in focus is in focus.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm for an APS-C camera. I loved this when I got it first. I just loved Wide Angle at the time. I think I'm not so wide angly any more. The 17-40 was an attempt to replicate this.
I also have the Samyang 14mm which I've used very successfully for Wide Field Astrophotography. It's great for this. It gives me Super Wide Angle if needs be. It's pretty sharp. I have the Samyang 8mm Fisheye. I thought that was great fun on a APS-C camera.
I think now I'm more taking landscapes at 24mm. It's less distorted and I have to think harder about composition rather than fitting it all in.
Anyway a thumbs up from for the 17-40mm. Don't use it too often but it works for me when I do.
If you want to see what I do with this gear here is my Flickr Page.
I wouldn't claim to be the world's greatest photographer or anywhere near that.
I do enjoy it alot and I find Canon Rumors very interesting.
The technical knowledge here is remarkable.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan

Rick

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
  • Dual Platform
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2013, 10:36:08 AM »
These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan
I

Reasons for the disparity in commentary and experiences:

1.) FF vs APS-C Does this need further clarification?
2.) A variety of styles and detail needs.
3.) Amount of experience with a wide array of lenses.
3a.) Enough photography experience to know when to use a lens to its strengths and not push it beyond its capability.
4.) Fanbois
5.) Trolls
5D2, 5D3, D3x, D800E, TSE17, 100L, 14-24G, 24-70G, 24-70 II, 70-200/4 IS, CZ 18 ZF, CZ 2.8/25 ZF, CZ 2/28 ZF, CZ 2/35 ZF, CZ 2/50 ZF

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2013, 11:04:08 AM »
Thank you for the review  ;), but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope  ::)

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these  :-[

That's important to consider.  For all the love that L standard zooms, non-L standard primes and long L primes have been getting the last 3-4 years, we forget that the wide zoom is desperately in need of new glass.

Canon hasn't put out an EF mount zoom wider than 24mm since 2007 by my count (no, I don't count the fishbowl). 

So I made the move to FF last year, and I still will save my money for either the mythical 14-24 or perhaps the 'refresh' of the 17-40 F/4 into that rumored 16-50 F/4 IS.

- A

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2013, 11:11:34 AM »
These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan
I

Reasons for the disparity in commentary and experiences:

1.) FF vs APS-C Does this need further clarification?
2.) A variety of styles and detail needs.
3.) Amount of experience with a wide array of lenses.
3a.) Enough photography experience to know when to use a lens to its strengths and not push it beyond its capability.
4.) Fanbois
5.) Trolls
We're all a little bit #4 (but respectfully so -- after all, you fessed up to being a dual-platform guy and no one stabbed you), but there are very few #5s in this forum unless you bring up APS-H, dynamic range, or DXO Labs.   :D

I agree on all of us (in one realm of photography or another) not knowing the limits of our tech.  How often, it seems, that I use an ultra-large aperture lens and and giggle as I stop it down to  F/2.8 or F/4 just because I'd actually like a sharp image. 

- A

Jim O

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Driving the short bus
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2013, 12:10:01 PM »
Thank you for the review  ;), but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope  ::)

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these  :-[


You may be waiting a little while...  ;) Then again, you may not.
When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2013, 02:13:44 PM »
Thank you for the review  ;), but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope  ::)

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these  :-[

That's important to consider.  For all the love that L standard zooms, non-L standard primes and long L primes have been getting the last 3-4 years, we forget that the wide zoom is desperately in need of new glass.

Canon hasn't put out an EF mount zoom wider than 24mm since 2007 by my count (no, I don't count the fishbowl). 

So I made the move to FF last year, and I still will save my money for either the mythical 14-24 or perhaps the 'refresh' of the 17-40 F/4 into that rumored 16-50 F/4 IS.

- A

Good point.  So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.  To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me.  Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

No one is doubting that great pictures can be, and are taken with the lens.  But again, great pictures "can be" taken with most anything...phones...etc.  But most phones don't cost over $1000 (lens + cheapest body), and they can do other things besides take "great" pictures to boot (not that I take many pics with a phone, myself).

Certainly if I had bought and used a 17-40L lens a while I would have gotten some nice pictures with it, as well.  But having sold my 17-70 and my 17-50 crop format lenses before I sold my long-time crop camera...I would now like to buy, as the Brits say, a "very nice piece of kit" that is also good value for money, to mount on full frame.  I have the 40mm pancake, and it's a fantastic value (esp. at its sale price)...but it's not perfect either.  I recently discovered coma near and into the corners when doing Milky Way and Andromeda shots.  But I have no big complaints about its daytime performance.  The bokeh isn't perfect but it's not terrible...it's mediocre and usable.  The color is not L quality but it's quite good and fairly neutral.  The contrast is quite nice.  But this lens costs less than 1/4 of the already inexpensive 17-40L, yet at 40mm...the pancake is very likely optically superior to the 17-40, and is a stop faster.  No weather sealing, but that's an acceptable tradeoff.  There's my mini-subjective review of the pancake...just as valid if not more, than the 17-40 review. 
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 02:17:04 PM by CarlTN »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2013, 02:13:44 PM »

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1797
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2013, 02:40:20 PM »
Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use.  They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture

I have to take great exception to that. Shoot a 17 or 24 MkII TS-E with correctly applied tilt at f5.6 or f8, the sharpness and clarity will blow your mind, especially in big prints.

I think that's rather the point though: the TS-E enables you to have through DoF at 5.6. You're not having to use it at f11. In landscape photography where you are wanting to resolve detail that is relatively far away and small I can see a big fall in performance on all my lenses compared with region f5.6. When talking about 24 mm and wider I rarely require more than f8 by using appropriate hyperfocal point, but for those that do the tilt lens becomes king without a doubt.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2013, 02:41:29 PM »
Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use.  They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture

I have to take great exception to that. Shoot a 17 or 24 MkII TS-E with correctly applied tilt at f5.6 or f8, the sharpness and clarity will blow your mind, especially in big prints.

I think that's rather the point though: the TS-E enables you to have through DoF at 5.6. You're not having to use it at f11. In landscape photography where you are wanting to resolve detail that is relatively far away and small I can see a big fall in performance on all my lenses compared with region f5.6. When talking about 24 mm and wider I rarely require more than f8 by using appropriate hyperfocal point, but for those that do the tilt lens becomes king without a doubt.

Except when you want to zoom...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2013, 02:41:29 PM »