Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
1,997
132
30
34109
www.facebook.com

Permanent Housing Units Platform by alabang, on Flickr

This is the permanent housing units for Yolanda survivors of Tanauan City who live in the "no build zone". It is built more in land and some units are being occupied.


Permanent Housing Units Corridor by alabang, on Flickr

This is the permanent housing units for Yolanda survivors who live in the "no build zone". It is built more in land and some units are being occupied.


Permanent Housing Units Interior by alabang, on Flickr

This is the interior of a permanent housing unit.


Permanent Housing Units Exterior by alabang, on Flickr

The house at center is what it looks from the outside.
 

TheJock

Location: Dubai
Oct 10, 2013
555
0
Dubai
I may have the chance of picking this lens up used for $470, so would any owners of this and the 16-35L advise me if it's a good purchase, or will I always be longing for the 16-35L?
Both have the same minimum focus distance and aperture blades, and I live in a very sunny country, what would your recommendations be?
Many thanks in advance.
 

Luds34

EOS 6D MK II
May 15, 2014
919
0
dilbert said:
Stewart K said:
I may have the chance of picking this lens up used for $470, so would any owners of this and the 16-35L advise me if it's a good purchase, or will I always be longing for the 16-35L?
It is a good lens to use on APS-C.
Respectively disagree. I believe in using the right tool for the job. And making a "normal zoom" out of an ultra-wide angle zoom never made much sense to me, especially with much better options on the market. Even a standard 18-55 kit would give one better performance, greater zoom range, far less weight, and an enormous cost saving factor.

If one was looking at that price range ($400ish used market, $700 new) and weight/size, a far better option would be the excellent EF-S 15-85. Or how about the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Art?

Maybe years ago when the kits lenses were sub-par and the market had limited normal zooms for APS-C, an UWA like the 17-40 might have been a viable option. But I just don't see that today.
 

wsheldon

EOS RP
Sep 23, 2012
213
0
www.sheldonphoto.net
Stewart K said:
I may have the chance of picking this lens up used for $470, so would any owners of this and the 16-35L advise me if it's a good purchase, or will I always be longing for the 16-35L?
Both have the same minimum focus distance and aperture blades, and I live in a very sunny country, what would your recommendations be?
The 17-40 is a great deal *if* you 1) get a good copy that doesn't have centering issues and 2) you are comfortable shooting at f8 or smaller, particularly <20mm. Neither of those was true for me so I sold mine cheap and bought the 16-35 f4 and I've been very happy with the upgrade. Being able to get good edges and corners at f4-f5.6 is really helpful to me for event and travel photography, and the center is stellar at all focal lengths (like the 17-40). I started with the 17-40 on crop and was pretty happy, but switching to FF really showed its weaknesses.

Here's a good, balance comparison of the two from Graham Clark: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

Tempting price, though, as long as you go into it with the right expectations and know your needs.
 

TheJock

Location: Dubai
Oct 10, 2013
555
0
Dubai
I already have a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 for my 70D, so I was looking for something to use on my 5DIII. The used price of a 16-35 F4 is almost double the price of this 17-40 here, so I think I'll just wait it out for the mark III 16-35 to have an effect on the price of the old mark II, then I'll grab one of those; there just seems to be too much negativity surrounding the 17-40 :-[
Thanks for your input guys.
 

Luds34

EOS 6D MK II
May 15, 2014
919
0
Stewart K said:
I already have a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 for my 70D, so I was looking for something to use on my 5DIII. The used price of a 16-35 F4 is almost double the price of this 17-40 here, so I think I'll just wait it out for the mark III 16-35 to have an effect on the price of the old mark II, then I'll grab one of those; there just seems to be too much negativity surrounding the 17-40 :-[
Thanks for your input guys.
Hi Stewart, I can relate to your situation. Before picking up the 6D, I shot a Tokina 11-16 on my 70D. However after upgrading to full frame, it only made sense to pick up a UWA zoom for it as well, for landscape shots and the like. While the new 16-35 f/4L IS is the better lens the 17-40 is no slouch, especially if stopped down and used for landscape. Most people focus on sharpness, but one area where I believe the new lens is better is distortion on the edges. For example if you shoot at 17mm on the 17-40 and have people on the edge, they'll look bloated and fat. Again, not really an issue shooting landscapes, and frankly this is an issue all UWA lenses deal with, just some do it better then others.

I ended up picking up a used 17-40 for $400 of craigslist and have been very happy with the results I get from the lens. Personal Note: Of course I managed to drop it this last summer Cracking the front element, denting the filter, only a month or two after owning it so I had to send it in for a repair. Of course with all the part replaced it's essentially a new lens. :)

But like you I struggled, as people on this forum speak as if it's a bad lens and the new one is sooo much better. The reality is that if you looked at posts 5 years ago I'm sure you'd find the same people singing praises of the 17-40L.

I don't get super pixel peeping, test chart shooting. I just care about real world results. When the deal on the 17-40 came along, I was hesitant. What put me over the edge what this guy's video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7n1L1QCjqU

It's a little long, and he does start out test chart shooting, etc. But I look at the images he can create and very quickly realized that it is not going to be the 17-40 f/4 or the 16-35 f/4 that will be holding me back. The reality is the lenses are much closer in performance then you'd think reading on a forum full or enthusiasts and pros who are always salivating over the latest greatest.

One other thing that held me back, is these are slow lenses. I'm just a poor enthusiast so getting the most out of my gear is important. I asked myself if maybe I needed an f/2.8 UWA zoom so the lens could double for event style shooting as well. I got close to picking up a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 however the lack of being able to take filters was a no go for me. Same issue when eyeing the new Tamron 15-30.

I took My 6D and only this 17-40 as my only gear into my yearly BWCA trip this year and am very happy with the results. I got a handful of solid, long exposure, scenic shots up there and am glad I brought this lens.

In short I can recommend this lens (assuming you get a good copy), especially if you are getting it for sub $500. I feel that is good value. My biggest personal complaint (and could be just my copy) the focus/zoom rings are not the most damped. I've missed more then one shot by bumping the focus ring in between focusing (BBF) and pulling the trigger. But with anything else, it is just getting trained/experienced with your gear.

Best of luck on whatever you decide and happy shooting!
 

Luds34

EOS 6D MK II
May 15, 2014
919
0
One more, I apologize if I shared this one already. I need to get some of my BWCA shots from this last summer up on flickr and I'll have to share a couple of those taken with the 17-40.

Fall Dock and Pond by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr
 

MiJe

I'm New Here
Jun 20, 2014
9
1


A former Cistercian abbey in the State of Saarland, Germany.
Founded in 1131, burnt down in 1614.





At 6.6m (21,5ft) the tallest menhir in Central Europe:

 
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.
 

Attachments

kaihp

I'm not new here
Mar 19, 2012
854
6
MrFotoFool said:
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.
Looks great. I like the dark look of the photo, so I wouldn't lighten it much (if at all).

The 17-40L was my first lens when I changed to digital and it served me well for a very long time on my APS-C bodies.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
MrFotoFool said:
Out of camera JPEG (except for downsizing and watermark). I probably need to lighten it.

This is from my first trip with newly acquired used version of 17-40. I have never used wider than 24mm but wanted this for a trip to Northern Arizona and found one at Adorama for 459. I am very pleased with the results. Yes reports say the 16-35 f4L IS is sharper in corners and if I had the money I would have gotten it. Really I don't even have the money for this one, but I decided if I found one under 500 I would go for it.

This shot is at 21mm, f9 for 2 seconds, ISO 400 on a 5D3.
Nice shot, thanks for posting.

Any reason why the lens doesn't render the street lights into sun stars? f/9 should be stopped down enough to do that, so I'm perplexed.

- A
 
@ ahsanford - I don't think f9 is a small enough aperture for the starburst effect. Typically (as I understand it) you need f22. Maybe f16 is enough, but apertures larger than that do not work in my limited experience.

I do not know if focal length has any effect or not, meaning I don't know if it is harder to get with wider angle lenses. Perhaps someone reading this has the answer?