November 24, 2014, 04:43:15 AM

Author Topic: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark  (Read 8989 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2014, 01:05:01 PM »
The 17-40mm L, 18-55mm EF-S IS II, and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS are not even worth comparing to the Sigma 18-35mm ART, the difference is incredible.
Yes, when you're comparing them on the same APS-C camera.  But when you compare the EF lens on FF to the Sigma 18-35 on APS-C, it's a different story…

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2014, 01:05:01 PM »

Radiating

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2014, 01:08:40 PM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"\">Tweet</a></div>
<p>DxO labs has tested and reviewed the Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L.</p>
<p>From their review:<br />

“Due to its more glamorous sibling this modest lens is often overlooked though it’s well known for its high-performance by Canon users. As a small, light, highly portable zoom it would make a great choice for travel, landscapes and general-purpose photography.”</p>
<p>Our own review by Justin echo’d this feeling. Justin has owned and used this lens from his very first day shooting, and it’s a completely viable alternative to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L if you can spare the extra stops of light. You can read our <a href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4l/\">review here</a>, and check out DxO’s <a href=\"http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4L-USM-lens-review-Popular-high-performance-option\">full review here</a> their lens comparison tool is an excellent resource if you’re into sharpness charts.</p>
<p>Source [<a href=\"http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4L-USM-lens-review-Popular-high-performance-option\">DxO</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296/kwid/justin\">Canon 17-40 f/4L at B&H</a>  | <a href=\"http://www.adorama.com/CA1740U.html?kbid=64393\">Canon 17-40 f/4L at Adorama</a></p>


I have a theory that DXO has been getting specially selected copies with perfect tolerances from Canon. Several of their tests are way better than average. Certainly not impossible, but definitely not "average" from what I've seen.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2014, 01:21:04 PM »
I have a theory that DXO has been getting specially selected copies with perfect tolerances from Canon. Several of their tests are way better than average. Certainly not impossible, but definitely not "average" from what I've seen.

No doubt that explains why their initial testing of the 70-200/2.8L IS II showed that it was not quite as good as the 70-200/2.8L IS that it replaced…   ::)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

Can you point to some examples (other than the 17-40L, which as I stated, I think DxO's measurements are way too good to be even a cherry-picked copy)?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

dude

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2014, 02:11:33 PM »
I love this lens. It is worth mentioning that at one time it was the cheapest L lens you could purchase.

This lens is my go to landscape and daytime long exposure lens. Lightweight and wide. Yes, the corners are not great but it is an essential lens for my bag.
1DX, 5diii, M
L lenses for all occasions

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1445
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2014, 02:39:43 PM »
... their lens comparison tool is an excellent resource

...if you only shoot in lighting equivalent to a dimly lit warehouse.   ::)

Their Measurements are useful, their Scores and the rankings which are based on them are generally meaningless (except in warehouses ;) ).

I should qualify that be saying their Measurements can be useful, when they're correct.  They weren't for the 70-200 II, but they defended them until they silently updated them.  Their measurements of the 17-40L are also suspect, as they apparently show it's as sharp in the corners as the center wide open, and sharper at f/4 than the 16-35/2.8L II stopped down to f/8 - I don't buy either of those.

Well, they did figure out that it's a great travel lens (at least they got that right), something that is also clearly stated on the Canon Europe website (and I agree!!) Doh!:

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom/index.aspx
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 02:41:18 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

Cali Capture

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2014, 04:33:11 PM »
I have found this to be a great lens. Opted for this over the 16-32 becuase of price and I use a 24mm 1.4L for low light wide. I'm not a pro landscape photog so this serves my needs wide until something better comes out. I think we all agree Canon could use some help in the superwide range and Ziess's 15mm kind of said the same thing, sans auto focus and afordability!

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 704
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2014, 04:47:47 PM »

It's also worth mentioning that lenses designed for crop cameras use tighter tolerances in manufacturing which results in higher image quality (the parts are smaller so this is easier) so generally a lens designed for crop will perform better than a lens designed for full frame. The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).


Not entirely sure what you mean by "perform better", but to the extent you're right re image quality, it's only true if you compare the lenses on a crop body, as Neuro's link demonstrated; lenses designed for ff bodies work better on ff bodies, and the comparison tool at the digital picture repeatedly shows that any given ff lens performs better on a ff body than it does on a crop body; it may also show that ff lenses on ff bodies perform better than their crop equivalents on crop bodies.   For instance, many a reviewer/commentator raves about the sharpness of the EF-S 60mm macro which, in comparisons, seems to perform better than the 100mm L on crop bodies; Roger Cicala's blurb on the lens says it's one of the rare lenses that make him wish he used a crop body.  And it's certainly an excellent lens; but as I recently found out the hard way (i.e., I bought one, though the digital picture would have demonstrated the point had I bothered to check), while it may be light and convenient, it's certainly not as good as, let alone better than, the 100L on a ff body.

As for "tighter tolerances," even if that's true, something is evidently making a lot of reviewers complain about autofocus accuracy on the Sigma.  Fantastic image quality is all very well, but you won't notice it when the focus is off.  Have those reading this had problems of focus inaccuracy with the Sigma?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2014, 04:47:47 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5063
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2014, 05:12:14 PM »
The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).

We should pick up that topic again after you try to shoot in snow, rain and sand for some time with the non-L lens - how sharp is your picture if your lens is broken or after you've gone broke yourself after so many repairs?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2014, 05:16:23 PM »
The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).

We should pick up that topic again after you try to shoot in snow, rain and sand for some time with the non-L lens - how sharp is your picture if your lens is broken or after you've gone broke yourself after so many repairs?

Then again, how many white box versions of the rebel kit lens can you buy for the price of one 17-40 L?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 5063
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2014, 06:39:41 PM »
Then again, how many white box versions of the rebel kit lens can you buy for the price of one 17-40 L?

Look here, it's Mr. 1dx talking :-> ... I guess it depends on the type of consumer you are, personally I'm not all too comfortable with a throw-away style and am quite attached to my gear. I don't know the crop lens, but imho the L also has nice handling and an internal zoom which is worth something on its own.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2014, 08:39:26 PM »
When I first bought into dSLRs, I bought four lenses:

17-40L
28-135IS
75-300IS
50/1.8

Since then I've bought and sold:
50/1.4
35/2
Sigma 20/1.8
70-200/2.8L IS I
Tamron 1.4x TC
Tamron 2x TC
Canon 1.4x TC II
100/2

And sold from the original purchase:
28-135IS
50/1.8
75-300IS

The one thing I have left from the original purchase is the 17-40L.  It's a terrific lens.  I like my Sigma 15mm fisheye more and use it much more, but not because of any flaws in the 17-40L, but because I like the field of view, projection and speed of the fish better.

If you don't need a low-light lens, the 17-40L is great.  If you don't need sharp corners on full-frame wide open, the 17-40L is great.  The corners are much improved at f/5.6 and very, very solid at f/11.  The center and the entire APS-c frame is sharp wide open.  Focus is fast and sure, handling is excellent.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1309
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2014, 09:03:58 PM »
The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).

We should pick up that topic again after you try to shoot in snow, rain and sand for some time with the non-L lens - how sharp is your picture if your lens is broken or after you've gone broke yourself after so many repairs?

Then again, how many white box versions of the rebel kit lens can you buy for the price of one 17-40 L?

Wow, are we seriously comparing the 17-40L to the 18-55 kit lens? The kit lens is good but it's not in the same category. Despite the obvious differences, I can't for example use the kit lens as an UWA on FF therefore there isn't any way we can compare the two optically. I suppose you could buy a cart load of kits for the price of one 17-40L. But so what? I can also buy a few hundred disposable cameras, still doesn't solve my wide angle needs.

Why does everyone hate the 17-40L? We can't all afford 16-35LII lenses.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 09:07:34 PM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

slclick

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2014, 09:18:19 PM »
The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).

We should pick up that topic again after you try to shoot in snow, rain and sand for some time with the non-L lens - how sharp is your picture if your lens is broken or after you've gone broke yourself after so many repairs?

Then again, how many white box versions of the rebel kit lens can you buy for the price of one 17-40 L?

Wow, are we seriously comparing the 17-40L to the 18-55 kit lens? The kit lens is good but it's not in the same category. Despite the obvious differences, I can't for example use the kit lens as an UWA on FF therefore there isn't any way we can compare the two optically. I suppose you could buy a cart load of kits for the price of one 17-40L. But so what? I can also buy a few hundred disposable cameras, still doesn't solve my wide angle needs.

Why does everyone hate the 17-40L? We can't all afford 16-35LII lenses.

And unfortunately the price difference does not equate the very minor IQ differences, Yes I've owned both.
5D3, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-105 Art, 35 Art, 40 Pancake, 70-200 2.8L IS Mk2, 100 2.8L Macro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2014, 09:18:19 PM »

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2014, 09:58:04 PM »
And unfortunately the price difference does not equate the very minor IQ differences, Yes I've owned both.

If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14932
    • View Profile
Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2014, 10:14:19 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2014, 10:14:19 PM »