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

[CarlTN]

17-40 is one of the worst lenses Canon has regarding over all sharpness from the middle out to corners
The lens is not good even at F-8 in the corner resolution
This no news, the lens have been tested many times, like here http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

+1 but I beat you to the punch with the link.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:

http://500px.com/abeless

He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!

 

[bgran8]

Awesome landscape lens when stopped down to F11...which most landscapes need anyways. Most of my fine art prints were taken with this lens. Other lenses are definitely sharper, but at F11 this lens does a great job.

 

[dtaylor]

As usual, I'm going to say that the differences are not as large as they're made out to be.

Maybe I have an unusually sharp copy (so does TDP apparently?), but it's good wide open and very good stopped down. I have sharper lenses, but the 17-40L is usually shot stopped down, and after post processing the differences are trivial.

Likewise, if you applied lens profiles and post work to the test shots at TDP, how much difference would there be really vs. the 16-35II? A little wide open, and none stopped down.

Astrophotography seems to stress its weaknesses and for that I would recommend a fast prime. But your typical FF landscape photographer can make plenty of sharp, detailed, 24" and 30" prints with this lens.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:

http://500px.com/abeless

He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!

As with any tool, it depends whose hands it is in.... many 'photographers' struggle with wide lenses!!!

 

[wsheldon]

I pretty much agree with everything in the review, and I will add my opinion to the fray, as it seems that everyone is coming out of the woodwork to measurebate.

The 17-40 is the undisputed king of Return on Investment. Almost every working photographer that is interested in getting maximum ROI shoots with a 17-40 as their wide. There was a time when you could look at the AP wire, and almost all of the editorial shots (Read: people shot within the context of their environment, aka Local People With Their Arms Crossed) had 17-40 in their exif....

Thanks for this perspective. I don't have the world's best copy of the 17-40L (as detailed in another thread on CR about alignment/repair), but even so this lens has helped me take a lot a really good photos on a 20D, 50D, and now 6D over the past 7-8 years in lots of conditions for not a lot of money. It's never been the best lens in my kit, but it's a good solid tool. To view it's relative weaknesses I have to pixel peep, which puts me in the territory of scrutinizing a 30+ inch print, which I rarely if ever make. I just shot this lens side-by-side with the Sigma 35 1.4 and you can certainly tell the difference at the pixel level, but not at web sizes (except for DOF, of course). Shot at f11 I'd need a *really* big print to see it, though, as impressive as the Sigma is. I'll decide which of these lenses to use in the future based on FOV/aperture/DOF, not IQ.

I'm with the news photogs you describe - the extra $1k (or extra weight) to get something measurably better can be put to other uses.

 

[CarlTN]

I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:

http://500px.com/abeless

He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!

Those are nice portrait work, but for most all of those shots...sharpness at even the borders is not required...let alone the corners. For landscape that doesn't work so well.

Frankly it seems to me most of those shots could have been done with any wide angle lens...there's a ton of post processing applied anyway...to the point that they look like paintings...which the photographer obviously intended. And that's fine.

Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use. They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture, with the main difference being the color rendition. With post editing, even color rendition isn't all that important anymore.

Certainly I agree there could be sample variation among 17-40 lenses, no doubt. This lens just doesn't suit enough of what I want to do. Which gets back to my original point...the fact that the review in question here in this thread, is entirely too subjective...and seems not any more or less valid than anyone's opinion posting in the thread.

It would be nice if Canon can produce an approx. 14-24 f/2.8 that is as good or better than Nikon's. But when will it happen, and will it cost under $2500? I doubt it, and doubt it will appear anytime soon.

 

[johntorcasio]

Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.

It's plastic
http://canon17-40mm.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/canon-ef-17-40mm-f40-l-replace-sleeve.html

 

[privatebydesign]

Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use. They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture

I have to take great exception to that. Shoot a 17 or 24 MkII TS-E with correctly applied tilt at f5.6 or f8, the sharpness and clarity will blow your mind, especially in big prints.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

For what it costs, the size and weight, I think it is an excellent lens.

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride

Beartooth Highway

My old Scout

Grain elevator

Tiny world of my house

And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean

 

[CarlTN]

Again I say, if you're only shooting at f/11, then certainly it almost doesn't matter which lens you use. They're all about the same sharpness and contrast at such a small aperture

I have to take great exception to that. Shoot a 17 or 24 MkII TS-E with correctly applied tilt at f5.6 or f8, the sharpness and clarity will blow your mind, especially in big prints.

Take it if you must, I wasn't discussing TS lenses here, and comparing them to lenses with no movements, really isn't a fair comparison...especially if you are engaging the movements.

 

[CarlTN]

It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride

Beartooth Highway

My old Scout

Gain elevator

Tiny world of my house

And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean

Nice shots, although I don't care for the sky in the second shot...and the last shot definitely was not worth the camera being knocked over on its tripod...glad it wasn't damaged! Was it just slightly off balance, or did the wind or water knock it over?

 

[pulseimages]

It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride

Beartooth Highway

My old Scout

Gain elevator

Tiny world of my house

And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean

Great images but what's a Gain Elevator?

 

[nicku]

oooo Yes....

17-40 f/4L was my first L lens; i bought it in 2008.... I had used this lens on multiple bodies ( 400D, 40D, 7D...) in every possible condition, from the dessert powder like sand, heavy rain to the mountain peaks in winter at -25 degrees C. It never blocks ,fill with sand,water ice.... is really a workhorse.

 

[paul13walnut5]

I bought the 17-40 f4L when I had my 400D to replace the pretty woeful 18-55 II.

It did a good job at that. I liked the build. I liked the feel of the movements. I liked the idea of the weather sealing (although my body was not) I liked being able to use filters properly, I liked the speed and quietness of the AF and the images were GOOD.

BETTER than the 18-55 II.

But not better than the 18-55 IS I got with my 550D.
I had a 7D by this point as well (between the 400D and 550D) which I had bought primarily for video use and the f4 aperture was limiting for me (in video you want to use as low an ISO as you can, your shutter speed is ideally 1/50th, so an f4 is siginficantly less flexible in lower light)

I sold the 17-40 and held on to 18-55IS until a sigma f2.8 zoom came up. Which was better for my video work.

Maybe the 17-40 is a different propostion on full frame. For me it wasn't an exceptional lens, and the things I remember most fondly about it weren't particularly the images.

 

[Gadger]

Thank you for the review , but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope :

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these :-[

 

[Hector1970]

These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
I had a choice between this and the 16-35 l and I went for 17-40 for reasons of price.
I wouldn't say the lens is the greatest ever but I think it's pretty good.
You can take very fine photographs with it. It's so a wide field of view that lack of sharpness in the corner isn't the end of the world. You can take a pretty sharp looking photograph with it.
Alot of photos nowadays are seen on an iPhone from Flickr and Facebook and you definately won't show up flaws then. It takes filters and this is very important for me for landscape photography. The fact it's 77mm is handy in terms of adapters (and lost lens caps).
Maybe my version is better than others (or more compatible with the tolerances in my camera (5D MIII).
I would have to say I am fairly happy with it.
I have a 24 TSE II and I can use that to combine 3 shots for a fairly wide angle view with shift but it's much more convenient to do it with a 17-40mm straight off. The 17-40mm may not be as sharp as the 24 TSE II but for me it's sharp enough and with Live view I can ensure what I definately want in focus is in focus.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm for an APS-C camera. I loved this when I got it first. I just loved Wide Angle at the time. I think I'm not so wide angly any more. The 17-40 was an attempt to replicate this.
I also have the Samyang 14mm which I've used very successfully for Wide Field Astrophotography. It's great for this. It gives me Super Wide Angle if needs be. It's pretty sharp. I have the Samyang 8mm Fisheye. I thought that was great fun on a APS-C camera.
I think now I'm more taking landscapes at 24mm. It's less distorted and I have to think harder about composition rather than fitting it all in.
Anyway a thumbs up from for the 17-40mm. Don't use it too often but it works for me when I do.
If you want to see what I do with this gear here is my Flickr Page.
I wouldn't claim to be the world's greatest photographer or anywhere near that.
I do enjoy it alot and I find Canon Rumors very interesting.
The technical knowledge here is remarkable.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan

 

[Rick]

These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan

I

Reasons for the disparity in commentary and experiences:

1.) FF vs APS-C Does this need further clarification?
2.) A variety of styles and detail needs.
3.) Amount of experience with a wide array of lenses.
3a.) Enough photography experience to know when to use a lens to its strengths and not push it beyond its capability.
4.) Fanbois
5.) Trolls

 

[ahsanford]

Thank you for the review , but hopefully it will be short-lived and you can review the new rumoured 16-50 f4.0L IS and the 14-24 f2.8L in the very near future.

We can live in hope :

Especially since I've sold my 17-40 f4.0L to purchase one of these :-[

That's important to consider. For all the love that L standard zooms, non-L standard primes and long L primes have been getting the last 3-4 years, we forget that the wide zoom is desperately in need of new glass.

Canon hasn't put out an EF mount zoom wider than 24mm since 2007 by my count (no, I don't count the fishbowl).

So I made the move to FF last year, and I still will save my money for either the mythical 14-24 or perhaps the 'refresh' of the 17-40 F/4 into that rumored 16-50 F/4 IS.

- A