Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L

[l_d_allan]

> Therefore, buyers of the Canon Rebel, 70D and 7D series should have a serious look at the 17-40 as their “middle” lens.

Disagree. The last several EF-S 18-55 kit lenses are significantly improved over the earliest versions. You are paying "L" prices and paying for full-frame coverage on a crop-camera.

The EF-S 18-55 is much lower cost (almost free as kit lens), lighter, possibly sharper, wider zoom ratio (40mm vs 55mm), and has good to very good IS.

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

I really can't think of a situation where I'd choose my 17-40 on my T3i/600d over my EF-S 18-55 ... unless I had the 17-40 along, and didn't have the 18-55 with me. I probably ought to sell my 17-40 ... I almost never use it.

I did get a Samyang 14mm, and have been Very Happy with it on full-frames. Amazing bargain.

[martti]

This review reflected very well my experience of the 14-40mm. It is a quality walkaround for a 1.6 crop body. On the FF it takes some getting used to and some post processing as well. It is mainly for taking pictures, not for pixel peeping or showing off.

[JVLphoto]

> Therefore, buyers of the Canon Rebel, 70D and 7D series should have a serious look at the 17-40 as their “middle” lens.

Disagree. The last several EF-S 18-55 kit lenses are significantly improved over the earliest versions. You are paying "L" prices and paying for full-frame coverage on a crop-camera.

The EF-S 18-55 is much lower cost (almost free as kit lens), lighter, possibly sharper, wider zoom ratio (40mm vs 55mm), and has good to very good IS.

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

I really can't think of a situation where I'd choose my 17-40 on my T3i/600d over my EF-S 18-55 ... unless I had the 17-40 along, and didn't have the 18-55 with me. I probably ought to sell my 17-40 ... I almost never use it.

I did get a Samyang 14mm, and have been Very Happy with it on full-frames. Amazing bargain.

Fair enough, I haven't had any experience with kit lenses in the past ten years. So, it might be fair to say that if you foresee switching to full-frame the 17-40 would be a sounder investment.

[Marsu42]

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

... which might make *the* difference between a working and a broken lens with no ends of service bills. For me, I happily place the 17-40L on the wet, sandy ground all the time and know the internal zoom most likely will cope with it.

Other than that, placing an uwa lens on a ff sensor is somewhat strange anyway since you need very precise optics to direct the light to result in a sharp image. On the smaller crop sensor which is nearer to the lens (because of the smaller mirror) building a good uwa is said to be much simpler, so for shooting @low iso I'd personally choose a 70d over the 6d... alas, the crop lenses are not sealed.

[MichaelHodges]

Huge fan of this lens. And  I was lucky to get a good copy optically (it needs a MFA adjust of +5).

I can't see myself dumping it, even for the 16-35 IS. Maybe I'll look at a 14mm prime.

Extremely reliable, workhorse of a lens that has lived through brutal drops and abuse. Still looks great.