Replacement suggestions for 17-40mm f/4 L

[EOBeav]

You're familiar with the shortcomings of the 17-40mm f/4 L, so I won't go into those here. Suffice it say when I compare sharpness and clarity to that of my 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4 L, it comes up a little short.

Here's my question to you: If I were to replace it, what's your recommendation, keeping in mind a similar focal range to complement the two other lenses I mentioned? I'd like something under $1,000 USD, without regards to what I could get for my 17-40. I'm willing to consider an off-brand lens, if it meets all of those guidelines and still outperforms the Canon I already have. Oh, and I shoot with a 5DmkII, so I'll need to stay away from anything EF-S.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

 

[briansquibb]

You're familiar with the shortcomings of the 17-40mm f/4 L, so I won't go into those here. Suffice it say when I compare sharpness and clarity to that of my 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4 L, it comes up a little short.

Here's my question to you: If I were to replace it, what's your recommendation, keeping in mind a similar focal range to complement the two other lenses I mentioned? I'd like something under $1,000 USD, without regards to what I could get for my 17-40. I'm willing to consider an off-brand lens, if it meets all of those guidelines and still outperforms the Canon I already have. Oh, and I shoot with a 5DmkII, so I'll need to stay away from anything EF-S.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

So is it shooting wide open that is the problem?

 

[EOBeav]

So is it shooting wide open that is the problem?

Not at all. Doing mostly landscapes, I rarely shoot at f/4. Usually f/7.1, or anywhere in the f/11-f/16 range.

 

[briansquibb]

So is it shooting wide open that is the problem?

Not at all. Doing mostly landscapes, I rarely shoot at f/4. Usually f/7.1, or anywhere in the f/11-f/16 range.

I find my 17-40 pretty good from f/8 to f/13 - but then I am not taking landscapes. I would be interested in knowing what issues you have as I can look out for them

Brian

 

[NWPhil]

You're familiar with the shortcomings of the 17-40mm f/4 L, so I won't go into those here. Suffice it say when I compare sharpness and clarity to that of my 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4 L, it comes up a little short.

Here's my question to you: If I were to replace it, what's your recommendation, keeping in mind a similar focal range to complement the two other lenses I mentioned? I'd like something under $1,000 USD, without regards to what I could get for my 17-40. I'm willing to consider an off-brand lens, if it meets all of those guidelines and still outperforms the Canon I already have. Oh, and I shoot with a 5DmkII, so I'll need to stay away from anything EF-S.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

better than the 17-40@ f8 in that price range...I don't think there is anything
If you double that budget and even consider used/refurbished, then you have options on primes

 

[5dmk.iii]

I have searched for something that good in that price range and nothing comes up... with 77mm filters that I have, I cannot upgrade to the 16-35mm mk.II, but maybe you can.

If you are not happy with the 17-40, then the next logical choice is the 16-35 mk.II, this will add about 35% to your budget if you get a refurbed or used one.... very good lens.

If the budget is the issue, consider the MF, Samyang 14mm F2.8, a great lens for the price.... but it is no zoom and no AF.

 

[AJ]

There's Tokina 16-28/2.8 and Sigma 12-24 mk2 to consider. Both have bulbous front elements.

Or you could wait for Canon 24/2.8 IS which undoubtedly is optically perfect. But it doesn't get you in the 16-17 mm range.

 

[5dmk.iii]

There's Tokina 16-28/2.8 and Sigma 12-24 mk2 to consider. Both have bulbous front elements.

Or you could wait for Canon 24/2.8 IS which undoubtedly is optically perfect. But it doesn't get you in the 16-17 mm range.

The sigma mk.II has complex distortion patterns but is sharp across the curvature. I would like to know how the Tokina fares in this respect, after all it has to be better than the 17-40 he already has.

 

[ejenner]

If there was something better than the 17-40 for less and $1200, everyone would be all over it.

Next step up at the wide end is either the Nikon 14-24 or TS-E 17mm. At f8 the 16-35 shouldn't be much better than the 17-40 it at all.

Then there are the 24 and 35 L primes.

 

[AJ]

I haven't tried Tokina 16-28/2.8 myself, but according to Photozone it's a little sharper than Canon 16-35/2.8 mk2. As it should be, given the reduced zoom range and bulging front element. And, if you get a good copy.

 

[dirtcastle]

I have a 16-35mm L II, but I'm considering leaving the < 24mm range to primes and getting a 14mm L (in a few years). I don't want heavy distortion at those ultra wide widths. Ultra wide zooms seems to be Canon's weak link. I would rather have a 14mm L, than a 16-35mm. Admittedly, it's more expensive.

 

[pwp]

My 17-40 f/4L which I've had since they were introduced in 2003 is not great wide open..mushy corners especially on FF. But past f/5.6 it is the equal of any 16-35 f/2.8II I've matched it up to. For static subjects I try to use f/11 with this lens. It's long been considered one of Canon's bargain lenses. It's great so long as you are aware of it's limitations. I also have the Sigma 12-24 which is a handy lens to reach for when 17 just isn't wide enough. But the Sigma is nowhere near the Canon 17-40 f/4 in IQ. I'll only use the Sigma at f/11 where it is respectable but certainly not stellar.

Not sure what to suggest to you. Canon have never been famous for stellar IQ wide zooms. You may be expecting too much from your lens or you may have a rare soft copy. I hope Canon is looking to Nikon's well recieved 14-24 for inspiration.

The recent CR news item on the patent application for a f/2.8-4 17-40 caught my eye. This may signal an update for the current lens.

Paul Wright

 

[Michael_pfh]

I vote for the 16-35 f/2.8II - Have taken thousands of great shots with it.
You should be able to find a used copy for around USD 1,000.

 

[Michael7]

I'd recommend a micro-adjust. The 17-40 is quite sharp, with even better contrast and color.