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

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

Amen to that. I intend to start reviewing my collection of vintage glass that is, in some cases, close to 50 years old, because there are next to no reviews of them out there. One advantage to reviewing older lenses like the 17-40L is that you can also compare it to newer offerings. A lens that was reviewed as being great 10 years ago may not still stand the test of time (and competition) today.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Agree agree agree. The reviewer isn't trying to rank the lens or definitively win an argument. He's wading into the clearly gray world of a lens's value proposition. It has pros, it has cons, and it can excel in certain situations.

Data is lovely, but reviews like Justin's (or those by Bryan Carnathan at TDP) fill in the other end of using gear -- they provide a photographer's perspective and not just data. How many people buy lenses solely on the data sheets from PhotoZone or DXO? Hopefully not many.

If it wasn't for the human experience, we'd all buy glass on meat-and-potatoes metrics like FL / cost / sharpness / max aperture. But photographer's reviews get to composition, handling, and the experience of using the product. Is the lock switch annoying to use in practice? Just how correctable is that distortion in post? Sure, it's a lovely low-profile 24-105 lens hood, but does it only truly work on the wide end? How much trouble is it to use a manual lens in that application? Just how heavy is the 70-200 to shoot with all day? These things matter to me, b/c a large purchase needs to be vetted on a number of fronts to avoid buyer's remorse, user's remorse, etc.

That's why any prospective lens buyer needs to look at those writing up lenses as a potential 'mutual fund of information'. You use Justin & TDP for overall considerations and user experience, use Roger Cicala for resolution data, and use PZ for peripheral considerations like vignetting, CA, etc. Then you make a decision to buy and are never surprised by what you're getting.

I enjoy Justin's work here on CR. They provide a human element to all this gear we obsess about.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Data is lovely, but reviews like Justin's (or those by Bryan Carnathan at TDP) fill in the other end of using gear -- they provide a photographer's perspective and not just data. How many people buy lenses solely on the data sheets from PhotoZone or DXO? Hopefully not many.

+1

I certainly do evaluate MTF charts and data-oriented tests, but that's only one part of the decision process. There are many facets of lens performance that aren't represented in charts - AF speed/accuracy, handling, etc.

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Justin, I'm sorry if you are offended at my criticism of your review. As for me "speaking as if people aren't coming into photography every day", that is putting words in my mouth. Try to avoid doing that again, ok?

You are emotionally attached to your lens, it being your first. But you should develop a thicker skin. Not everyone is going to march in lockstep with your approach and your conclusions. Measuring a copy of a lens is far from a "redundancy". To be honest your review does indeed read more like Canon ad copy from the outset, rather than a critical review. Almost as if you were compensated for it by Canon. I didn't realize a primary purpose of CR was to sell Canon gear by writing glowing reviews of it, but I suppose it could be? I thought it was more oriented around rumors of future Canon gear, and around people sharing their honest opinions of the rumors, as well as opinions of all gear that is commercially available and in use (even other systems such as Nikon, etc.)

In this forum, and in the marketplace, there are other lens choices from other manufacturers, to mount on Canon cameras (both primes and zooms)...and they get discussed. Yet you really only compare the 17-40 to the other Canon wide zoom, the 16-35...and you briefly mention a T/S and the pancake. So after 8 years you haven't compared your precious 17-40L to anything besides these?

Despite your pride in the fact that specs don't matter to you, to many of us they do matter. What matters to me is the best wide zoom (or wide prime) lens for the money, that also suits my desire to shoot in low light with less noise than shooting at f/9 or f/11 can provide...So I hope you'll forgive me if I may not become the 17-40L fanboy that you are. Stranger things have happened, though!

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open to ALL LENSES that will mount on my Canon camera. But thank you for your response.

 

[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.

Justin, I'm sorry if you are offended at my criticism of your review. As for me "speaking as if people aren't coming into photography every day", that is putting words in my mouth. Try to avoid doing that again, ok?

You are emotionally attached to your lens, it being your first. But you should develop a thicker skin. Not everyone is going to march in lockstep with your approach and your conclusions. Measuring a copy of a lens is far from a "redundancy". To be honest your review does indeed read more like Canon ad copy from the outset, rather than a critical review. Almost as if you were compensated for it by Canon. I didn't realize a primary purpose of CR was to sell Canon gear by writing glowing reviews of it, but I suppose it could be? I thought it was more oriented around rumors of future Canon gear, and around people sharing their honest opinions of the rumors, as well as opinions of all gear that is commercially available and in use (even other systems such as Nikon, etc.)

In this forum, and in the marketplace, there are other lens choices from other manufacturers, to mount on Canon cameras (both primes and zooms)...and they get discussed. Yet you really only compare the 17-40 to the other Canon wide zoom, the 16-35...and you briefly mention a T/S and the pancake. So after 8 years you haven't compared your precious 17-40L to anything besides these?

Despite your pride in the fact that specs don't matter to you, to many of us they do matter. What matters to me is the best wide zoom (or wide prime) lens for the money, that also suits my desire to shoot in low light with less noise than shooting at f/9 or f/11 can provide...So I hope you'll forgive me if I may not become the 17-40L fanboy that you are. Stranger things have happened, though!

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open to ALL LENSES that will mount on my Canon camera. But thank you for your response.

Condescend much? Try to avoid doing that again okay? That way we can all get back to sharing honest opinions without the fear of being belittled.

To answer your questions my job *isn't* to write glowing reviews for all Canon gear. I received some flack for my lacklustre experience with the 40mm f/2.8 and I wouldn't quantify my experience with the 17-40 as something worthy of fandom. Neither I (nor you) really direct the flow of this site, that's up to the owner (CRGuy) and the thousands of people who come here every day, it's something different to everyone.

I appreciate that specs matter to you, that's why I'm so glad you and others post that stuff in the follow-up forums. I'm not good at it, you are. Congratulations.

And, honestly, no I haven't compared it to much else. When I was working with a crop body I was curious about Sigma's 8-16mm, never considered Tokina (though it seems like I should, again, thanks to the kind people in this forum for pointing it out). If I had access to all lenses other than those I own, or those provided to me, I'd be happy to add my comments to them. But I haven't. This is reality and in reality I'm not sponsored by a lens manufacturer and what I have is what we've rented or purchased; this happens within finite limitations.

Don't apologize for being so open-minded. It's clearly what's made you the tactful and clever person you are today, open to lenses, discourse, opinions etc etc etc... I find it all rather exhausting, which is why I'm content sticking to my previous point: "If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there". And I'm writing for most people, or at least I think I am, maybe I'm just writing for me, but I never said you were most people.

 

[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.

Amen to that. I intend to start reviewing my collection of vintage glass that is, in some cases, close to 50 years old, because there are next to no reviews of them out there. One advantage to reviewing older lenses like the 17-40L is that you can also compare it to newer offerings. A lens that was reviewed as being great 10 years ago may not still stand the test of time (and competition) today.

That's awesome, I've often wondered about older lenses. What still work with my system, what I'd need to make them adapt to it and how they work. Maybe they're great for video because they have those manual aperture rings, or maybe it's the sharpest glass ever made, but it lacks AF... I'd read them!

 

[Loswr]

Good point. So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.

Who are you agreeing with here? Scrolling up from your pithy comment, I see similar comments only from you and one other poster who I'm pretty sure is a reincarnation of Mikael/ankorwatt.

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open...

Open minded, unless someone should happen to criticize your precious 6D. :

 

[ahsanford]

Good point. So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.

Who are you agreeing with here? Scrolling up from your pithy comment, I see similar comments only from you and one other poster who I'm pretty sure is a reincarnation of Mikael/ankorwatt.

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open...

Open minded, unless someone should happen to criticize your precious 6D. :

I am mailing everyone some hugs so we can get back to talking about gear, hopefully without calling other people's words inadequate or unnecessary.

I have verified that the hugs work on all mounts despite not being native Canon hardware. However, be advised the corners are super soft.

- A

 

[CarlTN]

Good point. So again, I think we can agree that the review in discussion was both inadequate and unnecessary.

Who are you agreeing with here? Scrolling up from your pithy comment, I see similar comments only from you and one other poster who I'm pretty sure is a reincarnation of Mikael/ankorwatt.

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open...

Open minded, unless someone should happen to criticize your precious 6D. :

Now now Dr., shouldn't you be getting back to your important, cutting edge research? Don't let little old me and my 6D fanboy-dom interfere with that remarkable brain of yours. I don't want to hinder work that could potentially save lives in the future...literally!

How long do you think it will take you to get to 20,000 posts?

Apparently there are times when this ankorwatt person and I agree. I'm ok with that. As I said, I try to keep an open mind...except in your case of course :-D.

 

[JVLphoto]

Some more 17-40mm images I've taken over the years...

 

[Jim O]

Data is lovely, but reviews like Justin's (or those by Bryan Carnathan at TDP) fill in the other end of using gear -- they provide a photographer's perspective and not just data. How many people buy lenses solely on the data sheets from PhotoZone or DXO? Hopefully not many.

+1

I certainly do evaluate MTF charts and data-oriented tests, but that's only one part of the decision process. There are many facets of lens performance that aren't represented in charts - AF speed/accuracy, handling, etc.

You also have to take into account the potential bias of the reviewer/author. I know that you know that, but it bears mention.

In this case, it is obvious that the reviewer loves this lens, and has for many years. That's not the only piece of relevant information, it's just one.

Please don't take this the wrong way Justin, it's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions:

From the review:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second best.

I might have said something more like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second choice.

Saying "second best" ignores the Tokina 16-28 which, if one gets a good copy and are willing to deal with the (lack of) filter issue, may be a closer second.

Or something like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L offers very good value for the money.

In fact, I love my 17-40 and for what I do with it, the 16-35 II is not worth the money. Not today anyway.

Just my $0.02 which, with inflation may be hardly worth the screen real estate.

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Justin, I'm sorry if you are offended at my criticism of your review. As for me "speaking as if people aren't coming into photography every day", that is putting words in my mouth. Try to avoid doing that again, ok?

You are emotionally attached to your lens, it being your first. But you should develop a thicker skin. Not everyone is going to march in lockstep with your approach and your conclusions. Measuring a copy of a lens is far from a "redundancy". To be honest your review does indeed read more like Canon ad copy from the outset, rather than a critical review. Almost as if you were compensated for it by Canon. I didn't realize a primary purpose of CR was to sell Canon gear by writing glowing reviews of it, but I suppose it could be? I thought it was more oriented around rumors of future Canon gear, and around people sharing their honest opinions of the rumors, as well as opinions of all gear that is commercially available and in use (even other systems such as Nikon, etc.)

In this forum, and in the marketplace, there are other lens choices from other manufacturers, to mount on Canon cameras (both primes and zooms)...and they get discussed. Yet you really only compare the 17-40 to the other Canon wide zoom, the 16-35...and you briefly mention a T/S and the pancake. So after 8 years you haven't compared your precious 17-40L to anything besides these?

Despite your pride in the fact that specs don't matter to you, to many of us they do matter. What matters to me is the best wide zoom (or wide prime) lens for the money, that also suits my desire to shoot in low light with less noise than shooting at f/9 or f/11 can provide...So I hope you'll forgive me if I may not become the 17-40L fanboy that you are. Stranger things have happened, though!

However, I won't be apologizing for keeping my mind open to ALL LENSES that will mount on my Canon camera. But thank you for your response.

Condescend much? Try to avoid doing that again okay? That way we can all get back to sharing honest opinions without the fear of being belittled.

To answer your questions my job *isn't* to write glowing reviews for all Canon gear. I received some flack for my lacklustre experience with the 40mm f/2.8 and I wouldn't quantify my experience with the 17-40 as something worthy of fandom. Neither I (nor you) really direct the flow of this site, that's up to the owner (CRGuy) and the thousands of people who come here every day, it's something different to everyone.

I appreciate that specs matter to you, that's why I'm so glad you and others post that stuff in the follow-up forums. I'm not good at it, you are. Congratulations.

And, honestly, no I haven't compared it to much else. When I was working with a crop body I was curious about Sigma's 8-16mm, never considered Tokina (though it seems like I should, again, thanks to the kind people in this forum for pointing it out). If I had access to all lenses other than those I own, or those provided to me, I'd be happy to add my comments to them. But I haven't. This is reality and in reality I'm not sponsored by a lens manufacturer and what I have is what we've rented or purchased; this happens within finite limitations.

Don't apologize for being so open-minded. It's clearly what's made you the tactful and clever person you are today, open to lenses, discourse, opinions etc etc etc... I find it all rather exhausting, which is why I'm content sticking to my previous point: "If it can and does take great images then that's good enough for most people out there". And I'm writing for most people, or at least I think I am, maybe I'm just writing for me, but I never said you were most people.

I learned (through no desire of my own, mind you) how to be condescending from those with over 5000 posts on here. I apologize if I've not yet mastered it to your liking. I will try harder to master it now.

Let me get this straight. You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few?

I have owned several lenses, a few cameras. I've rented quite a few lenses (so far solely) from your buddies down here in TN at Lensrentals.com. I like them. I'm not a millionaire like some on here, and I too live in this lovely, real world of ours. Yet somehow I have found a way to compare the lenses I've tried and owned. I didn't claim I measured them personally, but there's this thing called the "web" where you can read, compare, and even converse with people like the friendly lensrentals team, and its founder. There are also the many other resources which I and others have mentioned, besides the many places to see and search examples of pictures taken with specific lenses or cameras.

I guess my criticism of your review is, it is not very remarkable...yet quite a few on here are happy to run to its defense. In criticizing it, I was not trying to criticize you personally, Justin. So don't take it so personally...and maybe next time don't lash out at those of us who aren't big shot reviewers like you, just because we find your methodology and opinion lacking in some way. Your review was published and promoted on this website, be happy about that!

If I am the only person in this thread who feels exactly like I do, that is certainly fine with me. I don't follow herds...

If your main point in your review was to say that great pictures can be taken with the 17-40, that's not saying much. If your main point was that the 17-40L is the worthy second choice after the 16-35 ii being the primary one...I disagree with both of those points. The Tokina sure seems like the clear second choice, and is indeed better than the Canon 16-35's image quality for barely over half the price (assuming you get a copy that is centered...and assuming the flare issue isn't that pronounced). As for the 16-35 being the primary choice in the first place, I fail to see the logic in that...again because in the real world we aren't limited to just buying Canon lenses, or even to just buying zoom lenses.

What is probably going on here, is a difference of approach. Your work focuses on shooting people portraits, where my primary interest is landscape. In my opinion, people portraits can look great no matter what they're shot with. Compacts, phones, etc. What matters with them, is what's in the center of the image. Camera gear matters less, human or animal subject matter, shot up close...matters more.

 

[Jim O]

...I'm pretty sure is a reincarnation of Mikael/ankorwatt.

As Yoda would say:

Fairly transparent, that was.

 

[JVLphoto]

Data is lovely, but reviews like Justin's (or those by Bryan Carnathan at TDP) fill in the other end of using gear -- they provide a photographer's perspective and not just data. How many people buy lenses solely on the data sheets from PhotoZone or DXO? Hopefully not many.

+1

I certainly do evaluate MTF charts and data-oriented tests, but that's only one part of the decision process. There are many facets of lens performance that aren't represented in charts - AF speed/accuracy, handling, etc.

You also have to take into account the potential bias of the reviewer/author. I know that you know that, but it bears mention.

In this case, it is obvious that the reviewer loves this lens, and has for many years. That's not the only piece of relevant information, it's just one.

Please don't take this the wrong way Justin, it's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions:

From the review:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second best.

I might have said something more like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L is a worthy second choice.

Saying "second best" ignores the Tokina 16-28 which, if one gets a good copy and are willing to deal with the (lack of) filter issue, may be a closer second.

Or something like:

If you need a high quality, full-frame compatible wide-angle zoom lens, but can’t afford the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the 17-40 f/4 L offers very good value for the money.

In fact, I love my 17-40 and for what I do with it, the 16-35 II is not worth the money. Not today anyway.

Just my $0.02 which, with inflation may be hardly worth the screen real estate.

I love your opinion, mostly because I agree with it

And yes, that one semantically error may haunt me forever! But you're also very right. I haven't considered every variable and in that, my review *is* lacking. Lots of people talking about the Tokina, but not a lot of photos here. I'll have a look on the Flickr to see what the hype is about. Sadly, rentals in Canada are lackluster at best and we rarely get more than first party (the occasional high quality Sigma being the exception) gear.

Canon can do better here, I've used the 14mm f/2.8 and it's a great (if not expensive and specialized) lens. And given the age we can all hope for an upgrade of sorts. Will that upgrade be enough to rip me away from my baby? (Which I almost sold quite a few times... Something I wish I could do for me for-real children too).

 

[JVLphoto]

Let me get this straight. You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few?

Pretty much.

 

[CarlTN]

Let me get this straight. You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few?

Pretty much.

So again, as someone who is wanting to buy something now...your review didn't help me. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of the Justin lovers (your last name isn't bieber is it?). I am truly undecided, but have pretty much ruled out the 17-40L. But then, I have specific aspects I want for the lens, and it need not even be a zoom (although obviously zooms are incredibly convenient, and my usage will not be "single purpose").

 

[JVLphoto]

Let me get this straight. You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few?

Pretty much.

So again, as someone who is wanting to buy something now...your review didn't help me. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of the Justin lovers (your last name isn't bieber is it?). I am truly undecided, but have pretty much ruled out the 17-40L. But then, I have specific aspects I want for the lens, and it need not even be a zoom (although obviously zooms are incredibly convenient, and my usage will not be "single purpose").

It's "Van Leeuwen." Though someone once tweeted me a message intended for him. We're both Canadian but I'm better looking.

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR is a remarkable multi-purpose wide-angle zoom, sharp and able to handle the resolution of the D800, so a 6D is no contest. Don't know how you feel about adapters, I'm afraid to say I'm not crazy about them unless going for something truly unique (like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8). I think Canon can do better than the current 16-35 too. Their recent upgrade of the 24-70 f/2.8 proves that they're capable of some zoom awesome.

I've yet to spend enough time with the 17mm tilt shift on a full frame body, I've used it on a 7D (kind of a waste, but it's what I had at the time) and my old 1DMKII (RIP). 14mm f/2.8 is a really cool lens, depends on what you need, but if you love wide then that's a choice piece.

I have zero experience with Rokinon, their 16mm f/2.0 sounds neat. Maybe I should contact them and see if they're interested in having us review them here? Would that interest you (or others)?

Been working on getting Sigma stuff, nobody rents them here because you can't get the lenses serviced in a decent amount of time. Past QC issues made that a non-viable business choice, thus the first party offerings, and specifically L series glass. Though I have been borrowing and buying other EF lenses to help round things out.

While we're considering all options: what about micro 4/3rd cameras? An entire line of fast glass across the focal spectrum. I'm wholly unfamiliar with it, though, since I can barely afford one lens system. Don't get me started on medium and large format. My interest there is mostly in portraits.

I'm missing others too, I'm sure, there's just so much out there.

 

[CarlTN]

Let me get this straight. You have access to a rental house full of lenses, yet you're complaining that "in the real world" you could only compare the 17-40 to a limited few?

Pretty much.

So again, as someone who is wanting to buy something now...your review didn't help me. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of the Justin lovers (your last name isn't bieber is it?). I am truly undecided, but have pretty much ruled out the 17-40L. But then, I have specific aspects I want for the lens, and it need not even be a zoom (although obviously zooms are incredibly convenient, and my usage will not be "single purpose").

It's "Van Leeuwen." Though someone once tweeted me a message intended for him. We're both Canadian but I'm better looking.

The Nikon 16-35 f/2.8 VR is a remarkable multi-purpose wide-angle zoom, sharp and able to handle the resolution of the D800, so a 6D is no contest. Don't know how you feel about adapters, I'm afraid to say I'm not crazy about them unless going for something truly unique (like the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8). I think Canon can do better than the current 16-35 too. Their recent upgrade of the 24-70 f/2.8 proves that they're capable of some zoom awesome.

I've yet to spend enough time with the 17mm tilt shift on a full frame body, I've used it on a 7D (kind of a waste, but it's what I had at the time) and my old 1DMKII (RIP). 14mm f/2.8 is a really cool lens, depends on what you need, but if you love wide then that's a choice piece.

I have zero experience with Rokinon, their 16mm f/2.0 sounds neat. Maybe I should contact them and see if they're interested in having us review them here? Would that interest you (or others)?

Been working on getting Sigma stuff, nobody rents them here because you can't get the lenses serviced in a decent amount of time. Past QC issues made that a non-viable business choice, thus the first party offerings, and specifically L series glass. Though I have been borrowing and buying other EF lenses to help round things out.

While we're considering all options: what about micro 4/3rd cameras? An entire line of fast glass across the focal spectrum. I'm wholly unfamiliar with it, though, since I can barely afford one lens system. Don't get me started on medium and large format. My interest there is mostly in portraits.

I'm missing others too, I'm sure, there's just so much out there.

Thanks Justin. Again my choices aren't limited to Canon or Nikon, but thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty sure the Nikon is an f/4, not an f/2.8. Sorry to correct you, though. Did you mean the 17-35 f/2.8? It does not have "VR"...and also is only meant for crop format.

As for micro 4/3, I have no personal interest in them. It's a lot of money for a lot of sensor noise. The Voigtlander f/.95 lens designed (or modified) for this system make me yearn...but not enough to buy into the system. I already have the best Voigt for the money I could mount on my 6D, in my opinion anyway...and it cost less than half of that m-4/3 lens.

As for the 16mm f/2, I'm not interested in aps-c.

As for Rokinon, the 14mm f/2.8 probably closely rivals the Canon, as it does the Zeiss and Nikon 14-24 (at least regarding resolution...not so much color or contrast). But 14mm is too wide for me to make use of, and again there's a ton of rectilinear projection distortion at 14mm (besides the other distortions especially present in the Rokinon).

For me I am probably focusing on what might work best between 20mm and 28mm...that also costs less than $1000. It's probably between the Tokina 16-28 zoom and the Sigma 24mm prime. The Rokinon 24mm costs more than the Sigma yet does not AF or set aperture, and is not that much sharper than the Sigma. In turn the Rokinon is not that much softer (it may be sharper) than the pricey Canon 24mm f/1.4L...though I'm sure the color does not compare. I've actually rented the Canon 24mm L, but only used it on my 50D at that time. It didn't get sharp to the corners even on the 1.6x crop, until closing to f/6.3. It's much worse on full frame. But then, my primary usage is not someone's face in the center with a defocused background...which is really what all these lenses are meant for...and is also the easiest way to take terrific photos with them.

 

[JVLphoto]

Thanks Justin. Again my choices aren't limited to Canon or Nikon, but thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty sure the Nikon is an f/4, not an f/2.8. Sorry to correct you, though. Did you mean the 17-35 f/2.8? It does not have "VR"...and also is only meant for crop format.

As for micro 4/3, I have no personal interest in them. It's a lot of money for a lot of sensor noise. The Voigtlander f/.95 lens designed (or modified) for this system make me yearn...but not enough to buy into the system. I already have the best Voigt for the money I could mount on my 6D, in my opinion anyway...and it cost less than half of that m-4/3 lens.

Ah, you're right, it is an f/4, still a great lens, but I guess f/2.8 (or better) is what you're really after. So does the Voigtlander meet your needs? If so why? If not - why not?

 

[CarlTN]

Thanks Justin. Again my choices aren't limited to Canon or Nikon, but thanks for the suggestion. I'm pretty sure the Nikon is an f/4, not an f/2.8. Sorry to correct you, though. Did you mean the 17-35 f/2.8? It does not have "VR"...and also is only meant for crop format.

As for micro 4/3, I have no personal interest in them. It's a lot of money for a lot of sensor noise. The Voigtlander f/.95 lens designed (or modified) for this system make me yearn...but not enough to buy into the system. I already have the best Voigt for the money I could mount on my 6D, in my opinion anyway...and it cost less than half of that m-4/3 lens.

Ah, you're right, it is an f/4, still a great lens, but I guess f/2.8 (or better) is what you're really after. So does the Voigtlander meet your needs? If so why? If not - why not?

My Voigt is a 58mm Nikon mount, and I use a fotodiox chipped adapter (it's actually more like 54mm at infinity focus)...it meets my needs for that focal length. Why? Well, because it's the sharpest 50mm f/1.4 in the world, and has fantastic color and contrast. It's sharp 90% of the way to the full frame corners at f/1.4, and by f/2, is sharp 100% of the way. True the bokeh is not quite what the 50mm f/1.2L can do, and there's no AF. But for slower paced photography, especially of nature, I love it. It has better color than my 135 f/2L. The 135 has a touch more contrast, less longitudinal CA...and the smoothest bokeh there is. The Voigt's color is very vivid in the oranges and reds...greens are adequate. The Canon 135 is on the purple bluish side, but not as purple as the 85 f/1.2L I rented. I'm a fan of the "sigma color", but the most interesting reds I've ever seen were from the Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar I rented. The best color and contrast overall I've personally experienced, was renting the Canon 200 f/2L. It made my 50D produce color I've rarely seen in anything. I may rent it again.