Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?

[Rocky]

Based on your 2nd post, looks like you are using a APS-C camera. 17-40mm is a great lens for APS-C. Some poster may say that the 17-55 IS 2.8 is a better lens with about 80% more on the price tag. You will gain 1 stop speed and IS with slight increase in CA. I have used the 17-40mm for more than 7 years on a APS-C body. It is my main lens.

 

[Halfrack]

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

Factually Incorrect.

17mm is 17mm on FF

Better put, 17mm is 17 on FF, and 27mm on APS-C

That said the 17-40f4L and the 70-200f4L are both 'just do it' lenses. $500-650 used, and will hold their value. It's a great way for a photog to experience L stuff. It'll work really well and you may never need to upgrade. Then again, an upgrade may be a need to get a prime that's much brighter (24/35 f1.4) or wider (14mm f2.8).

 

[theqspeaks]

Setting aside the 17-40L, if the OP is a landscape photographer who usually shoots around f/8, I recommend forgetting about the 70-200mm f/2.8L and instead look at the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The f/4 IS is super light, super sharp at all focal lengths and wide open, and super easy to use. If you're not going to use that extra stop of aperture on the f/2.8L, you'll definitely appreciate the smaller size and the lighter weight (1.25 lbs less) of the f/4L IS. That'll help when you're carrying your gear on your back as you hike in to get a shot. Plus, the f/4L IS is a hundred bucks cheaper than the f/2.8L, and it adds a fantastic IS that gives it a huge advantage for when you don't have a tripod handy.

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

not much in fact the 17-40 range would be nicer and more flexable
however I love 2.8 on the 16-35 and the 16-35 is sharper at wide apertures too, for me the 16-35 f2.8L II is my ideal travel lens

 

[gmrza]

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.

not much in fact the 17-40 range would be nicer and more flexable
however I love 2.8 on the 16-35 and the 16-35 is sharper at wide apertures too, for me the 16-35 f2.8L II is my ideal travel lens

The flip-side to that being that, if you want to shoot at small apertures, there is not much between the two lenses - at f/8 and smaller, they are similar in terms of sharpness. If you are predominantly shooting landscapes, then weight and price probably weigh in favour of the 17-40mm.
As a walkabout lens on APS-C, I am now starting to lean more towards the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - the loss of wide angle is made up for by better sharpness at f/4 and the IS.

Some examples using the 17-40mm on APS-C (7D) - at 17mm, if I recall correctly:

and full frame - 5DII - at 19mm, if I recall correctly:

 

[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

Better put, 17mm is 17 on FF, and 27mm on APS-C

It's like that huh? ok then...

17mm = 27mm on APS-C is also factually incorrect. 17mm is still 17mm regardless of sensor size used

I guess what you meant was... the FoV a 27mm lens would give on a FF, is what the FoV a 17mm gives on Crop Or, to get a 17mm FoV FF equivalent on a crop, you need an 11mm lens...

 

[tpatana]

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..

Great photos! Did you use filters on those?

 

[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..

Great photos! Did you use filters on those?

yes, i used Hoya HD CPL to reduce water reflection and get extra one stop slow. also the filter make the lens to achieve full weather seal. all 3 shots make my camera like having a bath, it is totally wet.

 

[insanitybeard]

Based on your 2nd post, looks like you are using a APS-C camera. 17-40mm is a great lens for APS-C. Some poster may say that the 17-55 IS 2.8 is a better lens with about 80% more on the price tag. You will gain 1 stop speed and IS with slight increase in CA. I have used the 17-40mm for more than 7 years on a APS-C body. It is my main lens.

Likewise, the 17-40 is my main walkaround lens for the 7D, and serves me well. The range isn't as good as some of the APS-C dedicated zooms but it's still quite close to a full frame 24-70 with just a bit chopped off at either end of the zoom range.

 

[AmbientLight]

Perhaps it will make things simpler to state that the only way to significantly go up in image quality regarding the focal length of the 17-40mm especially for wide angle usage (so the new 24-70 won't count) is to invest in primes such as the 17mm TS-E, 24mm L or 24mm TSE-E. In my opinion the 17-40mm gives very good value for the price.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?

A waste of money on APS-C.

I sold off my 17-40L after I tried a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC. The latter offered more range, had f/2.8, smaller, lighter, at least as sharp if not sharper.

 

[EOBeav]

A waste of money on APS-C.

I don't know if I would call it a waste of money, but I didn't really fully appreciate my 17-40 until I moved up from a Rebel to a 5DmkII. The difference was striking.

 

[Zv]

Based on your 2nd post, looks like you are using a APS-C camera. 17-40mm is a great lens for APS-C. Some poster may say that the 17-55 IS 2.8 is a better lens with about 80% more on the price tag. You will gain 1 stop speed and IS with slight increase in CA. I have used the 17-40mm for more than 7 years on a APS-C body. It is my main lens.

Likewise, the 17-40 is my main walkaround lens for the 7D, and serves me well. The range isn't as good as some of the APS-C dedicated zooms but it's still quite close to a full frame 24-70 with just a bit chopped off at either end of the zoom range.

I did a comparison with my 17-55 vs 17-40 on a 7D, I found them very close in terms of IQ. I think my 17-40 was slightly better but
then again it is an L lens so it should be! However, having f/2.8 and IS and a bit more length the 17-55 is my walkaround choice on the 7D.

Also the price difference between these lens is not 80%, I would say about 25-30% more for the 17-55.

 

[Rocky]

Thanks for leting me know about the price difference. I do not realize that the price of 17-55 has came down to be about $1000. It used to be about $1200. Based on Amazon's price, there is still 43% difference. If I were in the market now, I would get the 17-55mm. For $300 more , It gives me one extra stop and the IS. It sounds like a good deal to me.

 

[Robert Welch]

The 17-55 has some nice features, 2.8 & IS, but the build quality is not good. It's a shame, such good optics in such a poor housing. It's better than the 18-55 kit lens, but not better than the 15-85 lens, and no where as good as the 17-40. I just use the 17-55 indoors, I won't take it to weddings as it's just not durable enough and too expensive to risk, IMO (I'm a wedding photographer). But if you treat it gently, it will provide good images. Of course, it won't allow you to upgrade to a full frame, you'll have to buy a new lens for that. So if you might want a full frame in your future, the 17-40 might be a better long term option.