Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?

[callaesthetics]

I don't use this lens much but i like it a lot when i need it. My 17-40 took a really nasty drop once. It was in my camera sling bag, i had forgotten to close the bag and for some dumb reason i decided to jump and take a picture, the lens came flying out and smashed into the concrete floor. It was the worse sound ever, the cap flew off, a piece of plastic ring in the front came off but i was able to push it back into the lens. Upon testing the lens, it worked just fine with hardly any signs of damage. It's one tough lens.

 

[kaihp]

It's focal range is really meant for a full frame sensor though. I wouldn't pair it with a crop body as the main walk around lens.

The 17-40mm was the first lens I bought in my 'digital era' and it was used as my main walk-around lens for quite some years on my 10D and later 50D (more than 75% of my pictures were with the 17-40mm, until I started shooting motorcycle racing).
Now that I have FF, the 24-70mm is more of an all-round lens than the 17-40 (but it was exactly the right lens in the Lower and Upper Antelope Slot Canyons as well as at Horseshoe Bend).

 

[ud4steve]

I think it's a great lens. It's the lens I keep on my camera most of the time and I get a lot of fantastic images plus it has weather sealing, something the EF-S lenses don't which is nice when you get caught in those sudden downpours while out shooting landscapes. Just make sure you put a filter on the front to complete the weather sealing. Overall I have never had any issues with it whether it be in rain, snow, or blowing sand, it holds up well and is definitely a lens I will be keeping for a long time.

 

[IIIHobbs]

I have owned the 17-40L, 16-35L and EFS10-22.

On a 60D or Rebel, I think the EFS10-22 is the best landscape lens. Great build quality, very good perfrmance and gives you an effective focal length of 16-35; excellent for landscape or tight interior shots.

The 17-40L was my first L series lens, I used it exclusively for two years with very good results. I changed I the 16-35L for the extra stop. At one point I purchased the EFS10-22 and did a lot of outdoor landscape with it. Images were very sharp, color and contrast were very good.

More here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[insanitybeard]

I use the 17-40 on a crop camera as a 'standard' walkaround lens and overall am happy with it. Yes the 17-55 is better optically for the crop sensor and f2.8 with IS, and has more range but I wanted a weather sealed lens to complement the 7D. Compared to my EF-S 10-22 I much prefer the build of the 17-40, the focus ring is far wider and smoother and the auto/manual focus switch is better quality. Although the range is limited compared to some alternatives it is still 'equivalent' to approx. 27-64mm on full frame so not a million miles away from a full frame 24-70mm lens. The barrel distortion is worse at 17mm than the 10-22 at 17mm. Overall, my experience of the lens on a crop camera is very positive. Barrel distortion is noticeable at 17mm and there is some softness out in the extreme corners (more noticeable with landscapes IMO) but CA's are usually well controlled and contrast is good.

Of course, if you are planning to use the lens on a full frame camera much of the above will not apply - from what I have read, the performance of the lens at the wide end suffers until stopped well down but I see you have your camera listed as a 60D. Just my thoughts.

Paul

 

[STEMI_RN]

Thanks for all the tips guys. I will also look into the 10-22, but I think I'd rather have a bit more versatility that I would probably get with the 17-40. I'll give them both a few days to try.

 

[vlim]

Coupled with a 5D mark III, do you recommand the 17-40 F4 L or another lens like a used 16-35 F2.8 L I (i can't afford the version II) ?

 

[yablonsky]

I use the 17-40 L with my 5D2. It's a great combination for landscape.
I love it. The 17mm are really wide! And you often really need them.

With regard to IQ the 16-35 I is no good alternative to the 17-40 L.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm thinking about purchasing a 17-40 f/4L USM. Anyone out there with one of these have any reasons why I should or should not go through with it. It will be my first L glass. After this I plan on a 70-200 f/2.8.

I'm mostly a landscape/nature shooter so I don't really need it any faster (usually shoot f/8-f11 on a tripod). And I was looking at my last 6 months of shots and most of my keepers are under 50mm focal length anyway. Every review said this lens gives the best IQ for the money (and sometimes better than more expensive lenses).

If there is something else I should get in the sub $1k range, I'm open to suggestions. I'm looking for any real world experiences from this lens. I'm just hoping to buy before the $100 rebate ends.

Thoughts?

Go for it. I have 16-35 II and I'm thinking selling it soon and replace it with 17-40. Since I don't use f2.8 to f5.6 much in landscape.

 

[EOBeav]

I didn't really appreciate what my 17-40 could do until I moved up from a Rebel (1.6x crop) to a FF 5DmkII. If landscapes are your thing, then this is the glass to get. My own photoblog has examples from it sprinkled throughout.

 

[K-amps]

I've said this before but this lens is a champion for the price. I agree at f8 it's damned sharp and for most landscapes that's what you'd be shooting at. I also hand hold f8 iso200 city / urban shots with it too and rarely get blurry images. The reciprocal guide for shutter speed relative to FL invariably means sharp shots. On FF its an excellent commonsense landscape lens which also happens to perform more than ably.

The lens has it's strengths... you just need to work around the weaknesses. Like someone said it is punchy and contrasty... It sure is... I shot this walking within a crowd being jostled about....

 

[mitch.o]

I'm thinking of buying a 17-40 too. This post has been really helpful. I have a T2i, but I plan on getting a 6D in December (should it actually come out in December... So help me Canon...).
I'm reading about all the "flaws" this lens has, but then I realized that many of them are corrected automatically in-camera (i.e. distortion, vignetting). Though I don't know how well this is done. Anyone have experience with this?

 

[K-amps]

I wouldn't advise the 17-40L, it's not wide enough (17mm = 27mm on a FF).

Factually Incorrect.

17mm is 17mm on FF

 

[killswitch]

Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.

 

[K-amps]

Was wondering how big of a difference of 1mm really is between the 17mm of 17-40L lens and 16mm of the 16-35mm L lens.

Certainly more than 1mm is on a 134 vs 135mm

Not exactly what you are looking for but here TDP dude compared 16mm to 20mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[perceptionist]

17-40 is a great UWA zoom on FF for the price. Slightly soft in the corners, but acceptable and distortion is not that bad. It also takes 77mm filters, which is great since many zooms at longer FLs do the same. I do prefer the 16-35 II however due to being faster, sharper at the corners, better microcontrast, better distortion control and creates beautiful starburst. If you do any night work such as the milky way that extra 1mm and extra stop is definitely beneficial. It's also a great PJ lens as well. The main downfalls are of course price and many are not a fan of having a 82mm thread regardless of what filter system you use. Of course the main thing you need to consider is what you shoot and the intended use of the lens.

 

[rahkshi007]

Best value of L lens, it 80% on my 5dmarkii .. the lens is sharp after f5.6,i like its lightweight, very good for landscape photographer as you need to climb the hill for several miles. Here my sample shot from the lens last week have a trip to Malaysia rainforest..

 

[Minh Nguyen]

The 17-40mm is a great lens. I don't use it all the time but when I do I'm glad I have it. You might be able to find that lens on FM Forum for about $700 or less used. Its one of those lenses that generally don't get beaten up too badly and you know the guys on FM are generally photo nuts who take good care of their gear. I actually got my 17-40mm brand new for $550. Can you believe that? It was during a time when Canada's exchange rate vs. the USD helped me save 25 cents to the dollar.

Can't think of any reasons not to get a 17-40mm.

 

[Kernuak]

It depends to a great degree on what you shoot and what you shoot with. I had it for quite some time and used to get a lot of use out of it, in fact it was the mainstay of my landscapes for a few years. However, that was with the 400D/40D, but as soon as I switched to ful frame for landscapes, I used it less and less. I was finding that it was quite soft in the corners and while sharpness isn't always everything when it comes to landscapes (it does help though, but impact is often a bigger factor), differences in sharpness across the frame tend to be more noticeable than general softness. For images with a lot of sky, it wasn't too bad, as there wasn't any fine detail in the top corners where depth of field also played its part more, but if there were trees for example, the leaves trended to become a mush. Also, for what I shoot, I found it too wide and started using my 24-105 more often (until I spoilt myself with the 24 f/1.4 MkII). Also, on full frame, you start getting issues with filter adaptors being visible in frame when stacking, so it is more difficult to use grad filters and CPL in different planes. It's ok if in the same plane though.
For the money, it is very good value, but I would suggest thinking about the reasons for wanting it, particularly if you shoot full frame and then make the decision as to whether the weaknesses of the lens are something you can live with. Having said that, I only lost around £80 on mine when I sold it a couple of months ago, so not too shabby a rental cost for four years.

 

[cayenne]

I'm thinking about purchasing a 17-40 f/4L USM. Anyone out there with one of these have any reasons why I should or should not go through with it. It will be my first L glass. After this I plan on a 70-200 f/2.8.

I'm mostly a landscape/nature shooter so I don't really need it any faster (usually shoot f/8-f11 on a tripod). And I was looking at my last 6 months of shots and most of my keepers are under 50mm focal length anyway. Every review said this lens gives the best IQ for the money (and sometimes better than more expensive lenses).

If there is something else I should get in the sub $1k range, I'm open to suggestions. I'm looking for any real world experiences from this lens. I'm just hoping to buy before the $100 rebate ends.

Thoughts?

I was originally going to be saving for the 16-35mm L lens....and while searching Craigslist, I found a young man selling the 17-40mmL for about $500 or a touch less.

I'd asked folks here on the forum about it (you can search for that thread)....and they all indicated it was a good deal.

I promptly met the guy at a coffee shop...and bought it.
This was my first used lens purchase.
I've had a lot of fun with this lens, both for stills and video. Sure, I'd love to have had the f/2.8 on the 16-35, but this lens has been fun.

I used it to get some very cool time lapse sequences from a camping trip I was on, was nice and wide to get the full camp of all of us moving about...and with the 5D3, even as it went into night, shots were nice.

I'm a noob...and not sure what's going on with this lens...but I find that shooting it as opposed to the kit 24-105mmL lens which is also f/4...that somehow the 17-40 seems to have better low light performance. Do wide angle lenses gather in more light than non wide angle lenses or something?

I thought f/4 meant f/4 and pretty much same performance at same light levels....?

Anyway, I'm rambling, but if you have the cash, and want a nice lens for a reasonable price, I can tell you I like mine.

In the future, I'll likely upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8 to get a bit faster lens, but I've got others on the list before that (70-200mm L mk II IS USM, and the 50mm f/1.2).....so this will suffice for my wide angle needs for now.

I'd suggest you keep an eye out on craigslist....see what comes up. The Canon sales on lenses lasts, I believe...through end of Dec....so, search around a bit and see what kind of deal you can find out there.

HTH,

cayenne