September 18, 2014, 01:46:35 PM

Author Topic: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L  (Read 24047 times)

Jim O

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Driving the short bus
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #90 on: September 12, 2013, 09:59:19 AM »
Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for  8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the (presumably Canadian) guy in a Blackhawks jersey...
When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #90 on: September 12, 2013, 09:59:19 AM »

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #91 on: September 12, 2013, 10:09:28 AM »
Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for  8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the (presumably Canadian) guy in a Blackhawks jersey...

lol, well we're allowed to be fans of teams that win aren't we?

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2262
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #92 on: September 12, 2013, 10:12:58 AM »
Dear Friends

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Enjoy
Surapon





Thanks, I never read that one... though it's comparing the 17-40 to the 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1)... so while the empirical tests on the 17-40 are still very good, the comparison is less relevant... unless of course someone's buying a used 16-35 version 1  ;D

Thanks you, Sir, Dear  Mr. JVLphotos.
You are right, That Old comparision at the time that  the New  mark II not on the market yet.
Thanks again.
Surapon

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #93 on: September 12, 2013, 10:18:47 AM »
Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
Too much angst on here sometimes about things just not worth getting angsty about.

Yarp, there's a lot of weirdos who are "into" photography and think they are experts...unfortunatly, they usually are expert forum trolls....which is why photography forums are full of weirdos and weird opinions.

My take on the 17-40L....it's one of the biggest selling lenses of all time. It delivers great results, it's an old design which makes it cheap but with plenty of scope for a mkII improvement.

As to the weird Nikkon f4 lens with VR....so people are using it on a d800 to handhold? Right? Surely that's an oxymoron right there....Tripod it and switch the VR off. Putting a VR unit into a lens doen't make it better or great. A 17mm lens can be hand held down to 1/20th second. If a photographer needs a VR unit becuase their shutter speed is lower and no tripod....then I wonder if any of their photos have any stature due to their lack of preparation and foresite.

Yeah, I kind of agree with the VR thing. Never had a hand-holding vs. shutter speed issue with my wide angles. Haven't really used IS on anything wider than the 24-70 f/4 and even then, not sure if it made much of a difference. A few ideas I have about potentially using WA + IS would be for wedding shooters going for an abstract long exposure, people wanting to take photos where tripods aren't allowed (lots of international landmarks are like this) or just the casual photographer going for a stroll. Or people like me who maybe had a bit too much coffee in the morning.

And yes, the Nikon, as I mentioned, is great on its own merits. VR is just an accessory after the fact.

As a wedding photographer myself, I've had a need for a VR/IS on an ultra wide. The only time I need a tripod is shooting a low light venue exterior shot (ideally at cross over light), which is usually around 30 secs @ f16. Yes that needs a pod, no question and no VR can ever replace that function. I've never had issues with venues and permission to use a pod....after all, I'm the official photographer! I did a wedding a few years back in Canterbury Cathedral's crypt and that was DARK! Shot under candle light, my fast primes and 16-35IIL did a fine job. Unfortunatly the brides older sister who married in the same venue two years previously and hired a.nother photographer...didn't fare so well!   

Personally, I love to shoot wide open and I like the softer corners and slight vignetting....it saves me a job in LR later....if I need the corners sharp then I'll stop down. Most landscapes are shot between f8 to f16, most UW lenses perform amazingly well at those apertures, but it baffles me why people compare wide open lens charts...when most of them aren't used in that capacity. For landscapes, even old mid range lenses perfrom really well. 

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #94 on: September 12, 2013, 10:23:51 AM »
I recently read a neat technique using Lightroom 5's new radial tool to create an inverse sharpening overlay. So instead of drawing a circle just to create a vignette (yes, I'm very guilty of this) you can use that space to sharpen the edges a bit to help balance the image.

nicke

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #95 on: September 12, 2013, 11:19:53 AM »
What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm.  Something like the TS without the movements.  I'd even settle for f4.  I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper.  But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult?  A sharp 17mm, corner to corner?  Zeiss 18mm?

I have the Zeiss 18/3.5 on my 5D mk III, and the lens is very sharp corner to corner. This lens is also rated as one of the ten sharpest lenses tested by the Swedish magazine Foto, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftidningenfoto.se%2Fde-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista%2F%23Carl%2520Zeiss%2520Distagon%2520T*%252018%2F3%2C5%2520ZF. småbildskamera = full frame camera.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #96 on: September 12, 2013, 11:25:58 AM »
What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm.  Something like the TS without the movements.  I'd even settle for f4.  I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper.  But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult?  A sharp 17mm, corner to corner?  Zeiss 18mm?

I have the Zeiss 18/3.5 on my 5D mk III, and the lens is very sharp corner to corner. This lens is also rated as one of the ten sharpest lenses tested by the Swedish magazine Foto, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftidningenfoto.se%2Fde-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista%2F%23Carl%2520Zeiss%2520Distagon%2520T*%252018%2F3%2C5%2520ZF. småbildskamera = full frame camera.

Seriously.  Imagine what innovating Canon would have to do if Zeiss had AF lenses we could use in our mount.  I've pondered getting one of their magical wide primes for some time for landscape work, which I'd shoot largely in LiveView.  But AF would be so useful for non-tripod work.

What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway?  It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware...  Is it a trade agreement or something, and if so, why would Zeiss leave all that money on the table?  Did they strike an AF-exclusivity deal with Sony?  Just curious.

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #96 on: September 12, 2013, 11:25:58 AM »

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #97 on: September 12, 2013, 11:32:03 AM »
What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm.  Something like the TS without the movements.  I'd even settle for f4.  I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper.  But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult?  A sharp 17mm, corner to corner?  Zeiss 18mm?

I have the Zeiss 18/3.5 on my 5D mk III, and the lens is very sharp corner to corner. This lens is also rated as one of the ten sharpest lenses tested by the Swedish magazine Foto, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftidningenfoto.se%2Fde-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista%2F%23Carl%2520Zeiss%2520Distagon%2520T*%252018%2F3%2C5%2520ZF. småbildskamera = full frame camera.

Seriously.  Imagine what innovating Canon would have to do if Zeiss had AF lenses we could use in our mount.  I've pondered getting one of their magical wide primes for some time for landscape work, which I'd shoot largely in LiveView.  But AF would be so useful for non-tripod work.

What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway?  It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware...  Is it a trade agreement or something, and if so, why would Zeiss leave all that money on the table?  Did they strike an AF-exclusivity deal with Sony?  Just curious.

- A

I wonder if AF just interferes with the optics somehow? More electronic bits inside make less room for sweet sweet glass.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4527
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #98 on: September 12, 2013, 11:48:33 AM »
What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway?  It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware...

... and they are still having issues with it, but fortunately Sigma now has the one working solution for it with the usb dock to update the lens fw and do other corrections, let's hope other 3rd party manufacturers will follow.

Joynt Inspirations

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #99 on: September 12, 2013, 02:56:53 PM »
I thoroughly enjoyed the review when I read it the other day, I then also enjoyed the other wide angle recommendations people were offering in the earlier pages of comments. However the pissing match is kind of ridiculous guys.  :P

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #100 on: September 12, 2013, 06:27:07 PM »
I thoroughly enjoyed the review when I read it the other day, I then also enjoyed the other wide angle recommendations people were offering in the earlier pages of comments. However the pissing match is kind of ridiculous guys.  :P

Thanks, and I agree.  ::)

Jim O

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 177
  • Driving the short bus
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #101 on: September 12, 2013, 07:39:22 PM »
Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for  8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the (presumably Canadian) guy in a Blackhawks jersey...

lol, well we're allowed to be fans of teams that win aren't we?

Not teams that beat the Bruins! Hahaha.
When people see you arguing with an idiot on the internet, all they see is two idiots arguing.

jasonsim

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 219
  • Hobbyist
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #102 on: September 13, 2013, 10:55:23 PM »
I really enjoyed the review (keep em coming) and am enjoying my 17-40mm f/4L IS.  It is light and gets the job done.  I used to have the 16-35mm f/2.8L IS II and for the price (even getting it at a bargain used; $1100), I decided to go with the even more reasonably priced 17-40mm I found used on FM. 

The results are nearly the same as what I used to get on the 16-35mm, since I would stop it down anyway.  The times I used it at f/2.8 the results were not that impressive.  Lots of vingetting on both...cannot say the 16-35mm II was so much better in the corners. 

So for me, the decision was easy...I don't do weddings and appreciate the lighter weight and 77mm filter size of the 17-40mm.  I also like the 5mm on the longer end!  17mm is plenty wide on FF. 

Here is a sample that I took with my 17-40mm f/4L IS on a 5D MKIII:



and...

« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 11:00:01 PM by jasonsim »
Cams: Canon 5D3, EOS M
Zooms: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 600mm f/4L IS II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #102 on: September 13, 2013, 10:55:23 PM »

kobeson

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #103 on: September 30, 2013, 08:30:56 AM »
I read the review, and think the lens sounds like the right choice for me. Then I came in here and found 90% dissatisfied reviews!

I think paired with my 35L on my 5D3 that a stopped down UWA would be a nice pairing - don't really need the 2.8, as it would be predominately used for enviro/editorial portraits.

I am wondering, how does the 17-40 go on a 5D3 in event work? Paired with a 600-EX perhaps?

JVLphoto

  • Administrator
  • EOS M2
  • *****
  • Posts: 221
  • Whatever clicks
    • View Profile
    • JVLphoto
Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2013, 08:46:38 AM »
I read the review, and think the lens sounds like the right choice for me. Then I came in here and found 90% dissatisfied reviews!

I think paired with my 35L on my 5D3 that a stopped down UWA would be a nice pairing - don't really need the 2.8, as it would be predominately used for enviro/editorial portraits.

I am wondering, how does the 17-40 go on a 5D3 in event work? Paired with a 600-EX perhaps?

Hey, I only just saw this question. I used to use the 17-40 exclusively at events, but that was with a crop body. I find it just a touch too wide on a 5D3. That said, I still use it with a 600EX & a sto-fen diffuser on top. Unless you're getting really nice wall bounce, light will trail off at the lower end of the frame compared to the top (since it's so wide) but shooting in the range is fairly versatile. I just find my 24-70 more than adequate for events.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2013, 08:46:38 AM »