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

[ahsanford]

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

We're all a little bit #4 (but respectfully so -- after all, you fessed up to being a dual-platform guy and no one stabbed you), but there are very few #5s in this forum unless you bring up APS-H, dynamic range, or DXO Labs.

I agree on all of us (in one realm of photography or another) not knowing the limits of our tech. How often, it seems, that I use an ultra-large aperture lens and and giggle as I stop it down to F/2.8 or F/4 just because I'd actually like a sharp image.

- A

 

[Jim O]

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 :-[

You may be waiting a little while... Then again, you may not.

 

[CarlTN]

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

Good point. So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary. To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me. Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

No one is doubting that great pictures can be, and are taken with the lens. But again, great pictures "can be" taken with most anything...phones...etc. But most phones don't cost over $1000 (lens + cheapest body), and they can do other things besides take "great" pictures to boot (not that I take many pics with a phone, myself).

Certainly if I had bought and used a 17-40L lens a while I would have gotten some nice pictures with it, as well. But having sold my 17-70 and my 17-50 crop format lenses before I sold my long-time crop camera...I would now like to buy, as the Brits say, a "very nice piece of kit" that is also good value for money, to mount on full frame. I have the 40mm pancake, and it's a fantastic value (esp. at its sale price)...but it's not perfect either. I recently discovered coma near and into the corners when doing Milky Way and Andromeda shots. But I have no big complaints about its daytime performance. The bokeh isn't perfect but it's not terrible...it's mediocre and usable. The color is not L quality but it's quite good and fairly neutral. The contrast is quite nice. But this lens costs less than 1/4 of the already inexpensive 17-40L, yet at 40mm...the pancake is very likely optically superior to the 17-40, and is a stop faster. No weather sealing, but that's an acceptable tradeoff. There's my mini-subjective review of the pancake...just as valid if not more, than the 17-40 review.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

I think that's rather the point though: the TS-E enables you to have through DoF at 5.6. You're not having to use it at f11. In landscape photography where you are wanting to resolve detail that is relatively far away and small I can see a big fall in performance on all my lenses compared with region f5.6. When talking about 24 mm and wider I rarely require more than f8 by using appropriate hyperfocal point, but for those that do the tilt lens becomes king without a doubt.

 

[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.

I think that's rather the point though: the TS-E enables you to have through DoF at 5.6. You're not having to use it at f11. In landscape photography where you are wanting to resolve detail that is relatively far away and small I can see a big fall in performance on all my lenses compared with region f5.6. When talking about 24 mm and wider I rarely require more than f8 by using appropriate hyperfocal point, but for those that do the tilt lens becomes king without a doubt.

Except when you want to zoom...

 

[Sporgon]

Guess if you have a TS-E you're gonna aft to use yer feet

 

[Loswr]

Guess if you have a TS-E you're gonna aft to use yer feet

Yep - all five of them (your two and the three for the tripod). ;D

 

[SwnSng]

Release the often rumored 14-24mm 2.8L please. I'm sick of drooling over my friend's Nikon setup for WA landscape.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I've always thought of Nikon as the company for wide angle, and Canon as the company for wildlife. There doesn't seem to be much evidence this has changed.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've always thought of Nikon as the company for wide angle, and Canon as the company for wildlife. There doesn't seem to be much evidence this has changed.

Anybody that thinks that hasn't used a TS-E 17mm. Canon make the best image quality and functionality ultra wide lens for the 135 format in the world, bar none. The TS-E 24mm MkII has even better image quality and embarrasses the Nikon PC-E equivalent.

 

[NickM43]

I love the 17-40. Best value lens in the Canon L line. I use it for group portraits, landscapes, real estate, etc. I will never sell this lens. Unless they come out with that 16-50 f4 IS I've read about...

 

[CarlTN]

I love the 17-40. Best value lens in the Canon L line. I use it for group portraits, landscapes, real estate, etc. I will never sell this lens. Unless they come out with that 16-50 f4 IS I've read about...

But what if the IS version winds up having even worse optics? Besides...at 17mm, you can't completely stabilize the corners, can you? Not unless the stabilization can rotate...

 

[stevejwphoto]

Is the 17-40 better for distortion compared to the 16-35?
I need one of these two wide zooms and minimal distortion would be my preference.

Thanks

 

[privatebydesign]

Is the 17-40 better for distortion compared to the 16-35?
I need one of these two wide zooms and minimal distortion would be my preference.

Thanks

Barrel distortion is slightly less on the 17-40, image quality is slightly better with the 16-35 at f4.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=412&Camera=453&LensComp=100

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[insanitybeard]

But what if the IS version winds up having even worse optics? Besides...at 17mm, you can't completely stabilize the corners, can you? Not unless the stabilization can rotate...

If an IS version had worse optics, I certainly wouldn't bother to get it, but I can't imagine Canon would 'update' a lens that performs worse than it's predecessor, especially if recent lenses are anything to go by. Pricing is a different matter of course! If they put hybrid IS in it as well, if I understand correctly hybrid IS can correct for some rotational movement.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's a good and frank review. The 17-40L is quite an old lens design, harking back to the early days of Digital SLR's. From a time where there were no dedicated standard lenses for the 1.6x crop and this was the closest thing. Full frame was only in the hands of the very lucky or super-rich.
The age of this lens doesn't undemine it's serious benefits and in fact offers buyers a really cost effective entry into the ultra wide range. For many, this is their first L lens. It's built like a tank and due to it's age, it's actually very keenly priced. Canon's f4 range offers a great compromise between cost, quality and weight / size. Just compare the 70-200 f2.8 to it's f4 variant to see what I mean. Canon is unique with their f4 offerings and for landscapers a 17-40L / 24-105L and 70-200/f4L offers top quality optics in a small but light bag, which costs about half of the f2.8 offerings...which is always a plus!
The L build quality is really excellent, way better than 3rd party lenses. There are other lenses on the market which can come close to this lens optically, but none are built as well, weather resistant and have such a quiet and reliable AF system. I went through two Tamron 17-35mm dii lenses before I realised that Canon's L lenses were far more rugged - end of story.
The slightly newer 16-35IIL offers a few more advantages over this f4 lens. Firstly it's a whole stop brighter, that's twice as bright and it's not much bigger or heavier. The other advantage is that it flares less and it's sun stars are a lot better. The lens has more aperture blades (and an odd number) helps create a more attractive star burst. While many would see this as a minimal advantage, for landscapers it's a delight and pushes their portfolio up a notch.
For my wedding work, I tend to not use a 24mm prime anymore, but favour my 16-35IIL. I have the versatility of the zoom and it's a tad wider than the 17-40L. I gain that all important extra stop and I like the look this lens creates in it's pictures. But it is a lot more expensive and it's extra features are not proportional to it's price, it doesn't have that much more to offer for it's extra money.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Is the 17-40 better for distortion compared to the 16-35?
I need one of these two wide zooms and minimal distortion would be my preference.

Thanks

With Ultra wides, there is no such thing as minimal distortion. A fish eye has minimal distortion for circular objects, but terrible for straight lines. A rectilinear corrected wide is great for stright lines but distort circles into egg shapes. The Sigma 12-24mm mk I or 14L are probably the best examples of this effect, spooky stright lines.
Most UW lenses are designed for a compromise between the two so that a photographer can dial in the amount of correction in LR or PS (LR is great for this and it's just one tick box).
If you are shooting architecture, then a brace of TS-e lenses is a better way to go. But if not, then a 16-35IIL is a good option with LR correction. If you are photographing people or group shots then the lens does fine without any correction.
No one has made a "one wide lens does it all" yet, and it probably can't be done. I use two UW's either a TS-e 17L or Sigma 12-24 for the stright lines and 16-35IIL for everything else (and used far more).

 

[Loswr]

Is the 17-40 better for distortion compared to the 16-35?
I need one of these two wide zooms and minimal distortion would be my preference.

Thanks

Barrel distortion is slightly less on the 17-40, image quality is slightly better with the 16-35 at f4.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=412&Camera=453&LensComp=100

The Imatest numbers at Photozone indicate that the 17-40 @ 17mm has slightly more barrel distortion than the 16-35 II @ 16mm, and at 20mm, the 16-35 II has substantially less distortion (TDP and PZ are consistent on that).

 

[JVLphoto]

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

Or that Nikon has a *killer* 16-35mm that's sharp as a knife with IS (or VR) to boot.

 

[JVLphoto]

Good point. So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary. To give a subjective review (with no detailed measurements, which would have been useful to compare to the many other similar tests done recently or eons ago) of a lens that has been out for over 6 years, seems kind of pointless to me. Kind of a "johnny come lately"...and not all that congruent with a "gear head" website.

You speak as if people aren't coming into photography every day, and aren't looking at old lenses as if they're new; because they are new to them. I'm glad I don't provide measurements, they're not something I care to look at in my work, subjectively quantifying a lens on it's own merits and how it works for me and how it can potentially work for others. If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there.

Thankfully, there are many helpful people who are better at measuring and analyzing charts than they are at getting out at taking photographs. Providing a great critical component to the forums here. And for people that need to add up specs to decide their purchase that information is available all over the place, and since you can't argue MTF charts and data patterns why would I be so redundant as to re-publish them here? As you said, several epochs have passed since this lens was released and tested. But not everyone has spent eight years shooting with it. I have, and no chart is going to tell you how well it handles, over several bodies, in the field, working for clients, in different countries, only "Johnny" has that kind of experience.