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

[JVLphoto]

I thoroughly enjoyed the review when I read it the other day, I then also enjoyed the other wide angle recommendations people were offering in the earlier pages of comments. However the pissing match is kind of ridiculous guys.

Thanks, and I agree. :

 

[Jim O]

Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for 8)

(Roller girl was actually shot at f/4, which kind of shows I think).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the (presumably Canadian) guy in a Blackhawks jersey...

lol, well we're allowed to be fans of teams that win aren't we?

Not teams that beat the Bruins! Hahaha.

 

[jasonsim]

I really enjoyed the review (keep em coming) and am enjoying my 17-40mm f/4L IS. It is light and gets the job done. I used to have the 16-35mm f/2.8L IS II and for the price (even getting it at a bargain used; $1100), I decided to go with the even more reasonably priced 17-40mm I found used on FM.

The results are nearly the same as what I used to get on the 16-35mm, since I would stop it down anyway. The times I used it at f/2.8 the results were not that impressive. Lots of vingetting on both...cannot say the 16-35mm II was so much better in the corners.

So for me, the decision was easy...I don't do weddings and appreciate the lighter weight and 77mm filter size of the 17-40mm. I also like the 5mm on the longer end! 17mm is plenty wide on FF.

Here is a sample that I took with my 17-40mm f/4L IS on a 5D MKIII:

and...

 

[kobeson]

I read the review, and think the lens sounds like the right choice for me. Then I came in here and found 90% dissatisfied reviews!

I think paired with my 35L on my 5D3 that a stopped down UWA would be a nice pairing - don't really need the 2.8, as it would be predominately used for enviro/editorial portraits.

I am wondering, how does the 17-40 go on a 5D3 in event work? Paired with a 600-EX perhaps?

 

[JVLphoto]

I read the review, and think the lens sounds like the right choice for me. Then I came in here and found 90% dissatisfied reviews!

I think paired with my 35L on my 5D3 that a stopped down UWA would be a nice pairing - don't really need the 2.8, as it would be predominately used for enviro/editorial portraits.

I am wondering, how does the 17-40 go on a 5D3 in event work? Paired with a 600-EX perhaps?

Hey, I only just saw this question. I used to use the 17-40 exclusively at events, but that was with a crop body. I find it just a touch too wide on a 5D3. That said, I still use it with a 600EX & a sto-fen diffuser on top. Unless you're getting really nice wall bounce, light will trail off at the lower end of the frame compared to the top (since it's so wide) but shooting in the range is fairly versatile. I just find my 24-70 more than adequate for events.

 

[l_d_allan]

> Therefore, buyers of the Canon Rebel, 70D and 7D series should have a serious look at the 17-40 as their “middle” lens.

Disagree. The last several EF-S 18-55 kit lenses are significantly improved over the earliest versions. You are paying "L" prices and paying for full-frame coverage on a crop-camera.

The EF-S 18-55 is much lower cost (almost free as kit lens), lighter, possibly sharper, wider zoom ratio (40mm vs 55mm), and has good to very good IS.

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

I really can't think of a situation where I'd choose my 17-40 on my T3i/600d over my EF-S 18-55 ... unless I had the 17-40 along, and didn't have the 18-55 with me. I probably ought to sell my 17-40 ... I almost never use it.

I did get a Samyang 14mm, and have been Very Happy with it on full-frames. Amazing bargain.

 

[martti]

This review reflected very well my experience of the 14-40mm. It is a quality walkaround for a 1.6 crop body. On the FF it takes some getting used to and some post processing as well. It is mainly for taking pictures, not for pixel peeping or showing off.

 

[JVLphoto]

> Therefore, buyers of the Canon Rebel, 70D and 7D series should have a serious look at the 17-40 as their “middle” lens.

Disagree. The last several EF-S 18-55 kit lenses are significantly improved over the earliest versions. You are paying "L" prices and paying for full-frame coverage on a crop-camera.

The EF-S 18-55 is much lower cost (almost free as kit lens), lighter, possibly sharper, wider zoom ratio (40mm vs 55mm), and has good to very good IS.

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

I really can't think of a situation where I'd choose my 17-40 on my T3i/600d over my EF-S 18-55 ... unless I had the 17-40 along, and didn't have the 18-55 with me. I probably ought to sell my 17-40 ... I almost never use it.

I did get a Samyang 14mm, and have been Very Happy with it on full-frames. Amazing bargain.

Fair enough, I haven't had any experience with kit lenses in the past ten years. So, it might be fair to say that if you foresee switching to full-frame the 17-40 would be a sounder investment.

 

[Marsu42]

Granted, the 17-40 has fixed f4 and better build quality.

... which might make *the* difference between a working and a broken lens with no ends of service bills. For me, I happily place the 17-40L on the wet, sandy ground all the time and know the internal zoom most likely will cope with it.

Other than that, placing an uwa lens on a ff sensor is somewhat strange anyway since you need very precise optics to direct the light to result in a sharp image. On the smaller crop sensor which is nearer to the lens (because of the smaller mirror) building a good uwa is said to be much simpler, so for shooting @low iso I'd personally choose a 70d over the 6d... alas, the crop lenses are not sealed.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Huge fan of this lens. And I was lucky to get a good copy optically (it needs a MFA adjust of +5).

I can't see myself dumping it, even for the 16-35 IS. Maybe I'll look at a 14mm prime.

Extremely reliable, workhorse of a lens that has lived through brutal drops and abuse. Still looks great.