17-40mm advice please!

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose. If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II. If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well. From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens. Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well. It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.

Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.

It is a matter of preference, for sure, but fortunately these days in Lightroom you can control saturation and luminosity on the individual color channels. It gives you a lot more processing flexibility without leaving LR

 

[Sith Zombie]

Wow yeah, great pics. I think I'll go for the 17-40 for now but that Tamron is looking awesome too

 

[Niterider]

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose. If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II. If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well. From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens. Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well. It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.

Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.

It is a matter of preference, for sure, but fortunately these days in Lightroom you can control saturation and luminosity on the individual color channels. It gives you a lot more processing flexibility without leaving LR

Definitely, I am just used to seeing people adjust the vibrance slider and never touch the HSL individual color channels. Since vibrance adjust the least saturated colors, it is often overdone and the effect is apparent in the transitions of colors (it looks very harsh). This is more of a generalization about LR4 edited photos. Your pictures definitely looked balanced and not overdone in terms of color management though. Keep doing what your doing!

 

[Rocky]

I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.

 

[Marsu42]

17-55mm may be a better deal.

In general +1 (and I'd advice people to look at the 15-85, too) - unless you want a sealed lens with L build quality, after my non-L 100mm macro broke down twice I don't underestimate that point anymore.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.

I would say that if you were talking crop only, the 17-55 is definitely a better choice. It gives you far more creative options and a stronger focal length that moves into portrait lengths, too. If the goal is to move to FF in the foreseeable future, the 17-40L becomes the better choice for obvious reasons.

 

[pgsdeepak]

I bought a 17-40mm a couple of months back for my 40D and I have plans to go FF in a month or two. I rented the lens a few times in the past as well. I always got good results with the lens (of course according to my standards, and I am not a pro, just a hobbyist). I tried 16-35 L II and EF-S 15-85. I could not utilize the 16-35 properly, so it potential is still a mystery to me. 15-85 is excellent with its range going from 15 to 85mm. IQ was also great. But I like the 17-40s color and contrast better (just a personal preference). And its my only lens with a red ring, so lets say, that also factored in to my purchase decision ;D

17-40 samples below

 

[Jim K]

I would get the 24-105 as a kit lens when you get your FF body. As others have said, you can't beat the discount price when the 24-105 comes in the kit. That's what I did.

I like my 17-40 as an UWA when I am shooting FF landscapes. Stopped down to f/8-11 it is as good as the 16-35.

 

[Skirball]

I made the jump to FF last year, sold my 10-22 and bought the 17-40 as my UWA. I was a bit apprehensive at first as I loved my 10-22 but I have to say the 17-40 is sharper and has better contrast. And it's built like to last. Sure, corners are a bit soft wide open at 17mm but for landscapes you wouldn't use it at f/4.

How are the corners compared to the 10-22? I'm in a similar situation, having recently picked up a 6D. My 10-22 was my workhorse, as the only professional work I do is RE & architecture. I loved the thing, with the exception of CA at 10mm. I figure I'll just rent a 17-40 and 16-35 for my next job and see for myself, but figured I'd ask since you've had the first hand experience... and liked your 10-22 as well.

 

[Rui Brito]

I know it´s a bit off topic, but...
EF-S 17-85 broken as on this link?
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/lenses/Replacing-Aperture-Cable-in-17-85mm-Lens.html
It can be repaired, I´ve repaired mine. Time consuming, but cheaper than a new lens. Not for the fainted heart though.

 

[3kramd5]

Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS

The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop

Just to avoid some confusion:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS.
The 17-40mm f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.

You don't lose a stop and a half by cropping. You must mean 'as it pertains to DOF'. Just to avoid confusion.

 

[tomscott]

No what he means is the depth of field, not that you loose a stop and a half of light.

 

[astevenscr]

Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS

The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop

Just to avoid some confusion:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS.
The 17-40mm f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.

You don't lose a stop and a half by cropping. You must mean 'as it pertains to DOF'. Just to avoid confusion.

Furthermore, I think this example can't be quite right for even DOF. Note that the o.p. says:
The 17-55 is the full frame equivalent of 27-88 f/4.5 IS; AND
the 17-40 f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop

but how can the equivalent f/stop for DOF purposes increase both when you move to full frame and when you move to crop? Or am I missing something?

 

[marinien]

Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS

The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop

Just to avoid some confusion:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS.
The 17-40mm f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.

You don't lose a stop and a half by cropping. You must mean 'as it pertains to DOF'. Just to avoid confusion.

Furthermore, I think this example can't be quite right for even DOF. Note that the o.p. says:
The 17-55 is the full frame equivalent of 27-88 f/4.5 IS; AND
the 17-40 f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop

but how can the equivalent f/stop for DOF purposes increase both when you move to full frame and when you move to crop? Or am I missing something?

Oh sorry! I wanted to use the same words as tomscott. He certainly understands the conversion, I think he had juste typed too fast . A longer statement would be:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS on crop (I ignored the "on crop" in the previous post because the 17-55mm is a lens for crop bodies).
The 17-40mm f/4 is the full frame equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.

@3kramd5: thanks for the added detail, yes, I meant DoF equivalent.