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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 9, 2013)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L here.


----------



## neech7 (Sep 9, 2013)

"Canon’s current and undisputed king of wide-angle zooms is the 16-35 f/2.8 L II"

Canon branded? Yes. For use on Canon DSLR? No, sadly. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on adaptor, maybe.


----------



## insanitybeard (Sep 9, 2013)

Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 9, 2013)

The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.

Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2013)

Thanks for a nice review. I always enjoy reading these.

In the review: "The lens focuses internally, but there is some movement at the front element which means true-weather proofing can only be achieved with an additional filter."

I understand the filter comment -- virtually all lenses require filters for true front-element weather sealing. 

But I thought the 17-40 was both internal focusing _and_ internal zooming (like all the 70-200s are)... so why is the front element moving at all? The sentence quoted above would imply that zooming moves the front element.

Please clarify, thanks.

- A


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 9, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Thanks for a nice review. I always enjoy reading these.
> 
> In the review: "The lens focuses internally, but there is some movement at the front element which means true-weather proofing can only be achieved with an additional filter."
> 
> ...



Hey yes, the front element moves in and out when zooming by about 5mm , but the filter ring is on the edge and is constant. And yes, pretty much every lens isn't truly weather sealed without that front filter (which I don't use), but I don't want people to be even *more* confused.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 9, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.



I didn't look anything up to make sure, it *feels* metal, like my 24-70, 70-200, 24 tilt shift and not plastic like the 100mm L... I could be wrong and I'd correct it in the review if we find otherwise.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 9, 2013)

neech7 said:


> "Canon’s current and undisputed king of wide-angle zooms is the 16-35 f/2.8 L II"
> 
> Canon branded? Yes. For use on Canon DSLR? No, sadly. The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on adaptor, maybe.



If I counted every lens and lens adapter out there my head would explode


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 9, 2013)

tomscott said:


> The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.
> 
> Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.



Which tokina are you talking about? I was trying to specifically say "Canon" as in the brand. I've definitely been interested by the third party options but haven't had much chance to use them.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2013)

tomscott said:


> The tokina still seems like the best WA out there, half the price of the 16-35 similar price to the 17-40 with a constant 2.8 aperture much sharper than both and nearly as sharp as the Nikon 14-24.
> 
> Shame like the Nikon it cannot take any filters which is where the 16-35mm wins. Also the Tokina Nikon and 16-35mm weight a fair amount more than the 17-40. Touch choice but the 16-35mm is a ridiculous price for its performance compared to the rest of the market.


The Nikon 14-24 takes filters... but you have to use a Lee rig or something similar:
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#sw-150

Now, you can't use a CPL on that rig, but at those focal lengths a CPL is an unqualified disaster. Your FOV is so wide that you are all but guaranteed to get that funky 'faux-vignetting' from the CPL effect (the sky will inconsistently be light and dark), and that's not really back-out-able in post. But that rig will allow ND filters, ND grads, etc.

- A


----------



## Rick (Sep 9, 2013)

I've owned the 16-35, 16-35 II & the 17-40 and 17-40 is a poor substitue for either 16-36 lens especially for landscape. I know of few zoom lenses in the Canon line-up with better color and contrast than a 16-35. The 17-40 may be a tad sharper into the corners in a few FLs than the 16-35 II, but that is the extent of its claim to fame.

Having said this, I've sold all of them in favor of the 14-24G. Yes, I am forced to use a D800E in order to use the 14-24G but sacrifices have to be made.  Actually, I think I am running the best tandem in 35mm format landscape zoom photography, the 5D3/24-70 II and the D800E/14-24G.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down. 

I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense. It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing. I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down.
> 
> I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it, but I also haven't yet found a replacement that makes a lot of sense. It does produce really nice images, focuses well, and has good color, but it just isn't amazing. I like doing LE work sometimes, and the 77mm front element means that I have plenty of filter options, which just isn't true of something like the Tokina 16-28 or even the mighty Nikon.



"I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it." Perfect statement. After working with the 16-35 for quite a while I also concluded that it wasn't "worth it" as a replacement either, at least not for my work.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 9, 2013)

The Tokina 16-28mm 

heres two reviews one vs the 16-35 by Dave Dugdale

Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 16-28mm Lens Review

one from matt granger vs the nikon 16-24mm

Tokina 16-28mm VS Nikon 14-24mm - LENS SHOOT OUT!

The Tokina is very sharp for its price! Shame its not weather sealed neither does it take filters but vs the 16-35mm its a no brainer its half the price, especially for a specialist lens for most people.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for another nice review, Justin. The single biggest factor for regarding these two options is purpose. If someone wants to do creative wide angle work at maximum aperture, the 17-40L is not your choice. If you primarily want to do landscapes, though, the 16-35LII and the 17-40L are very similar when stopped down.
> ...



I'm slated to do a review on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 shortly. Since I do like my Tamron 24-70mm (and it is a wide 24mm), I'm thinking that if I really like the Samyang it might be a replacement. But then the whole filter thing becomes an issue. I have 6 stop ND filter in 82mm, but I might have to get a 10 stopper and just do LE work with the Tamron if I go that route. I have a square filter system, too (Cokin), but it's effective limit is a 77mm before it starts really vignetting.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I own a 17-40L, and I don't love it.



+1

This was the first lens I purchased, back in 2003, to replace the 24-85 kit lens on my once-mighty 10D. I went full frame 4 years later, and my 17-40 doesn't see near as much use since then, but every once in a while it does, I need to go wider than 24mm.

I'm certain it has a metal body; at least, my 10-year-old copy does.

As seldom as I pull it out, I don't ever plan to sell it. I haven't thought of upgrading to a 16-35 for a long time ... it just isn't worth the extra $$ to me.


----------



## Rey (Sep 9, 2013)

I pretty much agree with everything in the review, and I will add my opinion to the fray, as it seems that everyone is coming out of the woodwork to measurebate.

The 17-40 is the undisputed king of Return on Investment. Almost every working photographer that is interested in getting maximum ROI shoots with a 17-40 as their wide. There was a time when you could look at the AP wire, and almost all of the editorial shots (Read: people shot within the context of their environment, aka Local People With Their Arms Crossed) had 17-40 in their exif. This is slowly being replaced by the near term love affair that editorial photographers are starting to have with the X100, but again, we are talking about a specific use-case scenario... one that Jvl happens to specialize in... (As it stands, Canon has the opportunity to corner the editoral environmental photography market if they use the 70D focus system/sensor on a low priced eos-m/11-22M kit, but I digress.)

The reason this lens showed up so much is because it is inexpensive, and when you are shooting people in context, the typical f/stop is 8. It didn't help matters that until recently, the 17-40 was better at f/8 than the 17-35 and the 16-35. Same build quality, lighter weight, less ghosting, better af, better contrast when shooting against anything with blowblack (white seamless, 'when in doubt-blow-it-out' skies) and half the cost meant that it was a no-brainer to pick up the 17-40 vs the 2.8. In fact, the 17-40 has always been the better choice up until the 16-35II came out.

But even then, the only thing that the 16-35II wins at is f/stop and beyond the call of duty sharpness. To this day, most photographers in the trenches would still just as soon get the 17-40 and spend the money they saved on cheap booze.

I didn't even get to the best part. For the people that are interested in getting maximum image for minimum money, the 17-40 has an internal filter holder. While all those 14-24 fan boys are spending $400 dollars on the SW100 and 100mm filters to fit their lens, 17-40 owners are cutting down cinegel swatchbooks that they got for free and getting the same end result.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 9, 2013)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of 17-40 fans on here, I notice Justin's review does not feature an MTF50 test. So I find it lacking.

Have a look here:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1

Keep in mind these are my own opinions, most of you will probably differ. However, you won't be convincing me that I'm wrong from my point of view, because I have done some research, and I'm not wrong. Hopefully at least some of you can relate to some of what I offer, though. 

My own photographic interest is not limited to only the focal lengths wider than 20mm, or even 24mm...and if they were...see my last paragraph. I'm also not interested in only being able to do daytime "landscape photography", although that would still be one of the primary uses for me. 

It looks to me like the Canon 17-40L is less sharp and has higher CA, higher vignetting, and more barrel distortion, than say the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8...besides being a far slower aperture lens to begin with. Of course photozone's test of the Tokina didn't seem all that promising either, because they tried several copies and all were decentered. The Tokina also seems to have other problems, such as flare and the huge bulbous front element. 

I'm currently in the market for a wide angle lens. Having looked at several tests and sample pics, from most of these lenses, it seems to me that the 14mm Samyang/Rokinon/Bower lens is almost on par with the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 and Nikon 14-24. And it only costs $300. Google search tests of this lens, under Samyang...

However, I don't think I can make good enough use out of a 14mm prime lens, and would prefer a zoom. Also if there is any architecture then you throw away a good bit of that 14mm, along with sensor resolution, to correct the mustache distortion...then of course there is the temptation to shift in post, in which case you wind up with less resolution than an iPhone...and then if you also want to correct some of the HUGE rectilinear projection distortion, then there goes the rest of the resolution.

Again the Tokina 16-28 has some flare problems, besides apparently being hit or miss with getting a sample that is properly centered. I am however still heavily considering it.

So the Canon 17-40 does not look all that impressive to me. It's decently priced, but is very similar in price to the faster aperture Tokina. Ideally I would like to do wide field Milky Way shots, so the 17-40 is just too compromised for that. Very high vignetting, very soft in the borders until it goes past about 24 to 28mm focal length. It's probably usable for tripod-only photography from f/9 to f/11, but that does not endear a lens to me very much. Most lenses are able to do this at a bare minimum, even decentered ones.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is clearly the best wide-angle lens available of them all by a wide margin, but just isn't all that wide...and isn't a zoom. If I wind up doing low light stitched panoramas, my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 seems even better suited, and is not much softer than this mighty Sigma.

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is clearly the winner overall in my opinion, but may not hold its value very well on the used market, because most everyone already sees it as the "bargain lens" (because the Canon 24-70 ii costs nearly double)...so they just buy a new one, rather than a used one for $200 to $300 less. So the hit for reselling will be more like $350, at least based on amazon marketplace (the ones listed higher tend to stay on there forever. I prefer to buy a lens like this and use it a while, then sell it...so in this case it would be cheaper to rent...but then the time is too limited. This is probably just me, though.) Also the Tamron's background bokeh is supposedly not all that smooth, but then it's not really much worse than the Canon 24-70 ii there.

The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 is clearly a bit better than the much maligned Sigma 20mm f/1.8...it costs less than the 20mm as well, besides costing less than the fully manual Rokinon 24mm f/1.4. However the Rokinon 24mm probably has a slight optical edge. Certainly the corners on the Sigma 24mm don't get usable until f/9 to f/11. From the product pics, it appears this Sigma on Canon, has a new focus ring, where the Nikon versions do not. All variations of this lens are now out of production. Probably a big negative.

The Canon 16-35 ii can work but is too costly for its optical performance, in my opinion.

So if cost is no object, just buy the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) or the Zeiss 15mm or 21mm. If cost is a concern, then I still don't know just yet. The Canon 17-40 just seems too compromised for me, though.


----------



## klickflip (Sep 9, 2013)

Good review.. keep on telling myself I should get one just to try at £500 it seems like a steal. 

The example shots are great - one question for the Author.. How were you getting flash sync on 5D III over 1/200s . Appears to be softboxed battery packs, profoto or elinchrom rangers?


----------



## Harald Wiking (Sep 9, 2013)

17-40 is one of the worst lenses Canon has regarding over all sharpness from the middle out to corners
The lens is not good even at F-8 in the corner resolution
This no news, the lens have been tested many times, like here http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 9, 2013)

Harald Wiking said:


> 17-40 is one of the worst lenses Canon has regarding over all sharpness from the middle out to corners
> The lens is not good even at F-8 in the corner resolution
> This no news, the lens have been tested many times, like here http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1



+1 but I beat you to the punch with the link.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:

http://500px.com/abeless

He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!


----------



## bgran8 (Sep 9, 2013)

Awesome landscape lens when stopped down to F11...which most landscapes need anyways. Most of my fine art prints were taken with this lens. Other lenses are definitely sharper, but at F11 this lens does a great job.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 10, 2013)

As usual, I'm going to say that the differences are not as large as they're made out to be.

Maybe I have an unusually sharp copy (so does TDP apparently?), but it's good wide open and very good stopped down. I have sharper lenses, but the 17-40L is usually shot stopped down, and after post processing the differences are trivial.

Likewise, if you applied lens profiles and post work to the test shots at TDP, how much difference would there be really vs. the 16-35II? A little wide open, and none stopped down.

Astrophotography seems to stress its weaknesses and for that I would recommend a fast prime. But your typical FF landscape photographer can make plenty of sharp, detailed, 24" and 30" prints with this lens.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Sep 10, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:
> 
> http://500px.com/abeless
> 
> He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!



As with any tool, it depends whose hands it is in.... many 'photographers' struggle with wide lenses!!!


----------



## wsheldon (Sep 10, 2013)

Rey said:


> I pretty much agree with everything in the review, and I will add my opinion to the fray, as it seems that everyone is coming out of the woodwork to measurebate.
> 
> The 17-40 is the undisputed king of Return on Investment. Almost every working photographer that is interested in getting maximum ROI shoots with a 17-40 as their wide. There was a time when you could look at the AP wire, and almost all of the editorial shots (Read: people shot within the context of their environment, aka Local People With Their Arms Crossed) had 17-40 in their exif....



Thanks for this perspective. I don't have the world's best copy of the 17-40L (as detailed in another thread on CR about alignment/repair), but even so this lens has helped me take a lot a really good photos on a 20D, 50D, and now 6D over the past 7-8 years in lots of conditions for not a lot of money. It's never been the best lens in my kit, but it's a good solid tool. To view it's relative weaknesses I have to pixel peep, which puts me in the territory of scrutinizing a 30+ inch print, which I rarely if ever make. I just shot this lens side-by-side with the Sigma 35 1.4 and you can certainly tell the difference at the pixel level, but not at web sizes (except for DOF, of course). Shot at f11 I'd need a *really* big print to see it, though, as impressive as the Sigma is. I'll decide which of these lenses to use in the future based on FOV/aperture/DOF, not IQ.

I'm with the news photogs you describe - the extra $1k (or extra weight) to get something measurably better can be put to other uses.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 10, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm already on record saying that I don't love the 17-40L, but here is the flipside. It still boils down to the photographer. Check out this guy's work:
> 
> http://500px.com/abeless
> 
> He uses the 17-40L for environment portraits quite often, and almost always wide open, and his work is STUNNING! (http://500px.com/photo/44300710 - this is a perfect example). I'm sure there is sample variation (Bryan at the TDP has a pretty sharp copy), but at the end of the day you can create amazing images with any of the lenses under discussion. They ALL have drawbacks; you just have to choose which one affects you the least!



Those are nice portrait work, but for most all of those shots...sharpness at even the borders is not required...let alone the corners. For landscape that doesn't work so well. 

Frankly it seems to me most of those shots could have been done with any wide angle lens...there's a ton of post processing applied anyway...to the point that they look like paintings...which the photographer obviously intended. And that's fine.

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, with the main difference being the color rendition. With post editing, even color rendition isn't all that important anymore.

Certainly I agree there could be sample variation among 17-40 lenses, no doubt. This lens just doesn't suit enough of what I want to do. Which gets back to my original point...the fact that the review in question here in this thread, is entirely too subjective...and seems not any more or less valid than anyone's opinion posting in the thread.

It would be nice if Canon can produce an approx. 14-24 f/2.8 that is as good or better than Nikon's. But when will it happen, and will it cost under $2500? I doubt it, and doubt it will appear anytime soon.


----------



## johntorcasio (Sep 10, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.


 It's plastic 
http://canon17-40mm.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/canon-ef-17-40mm-f40-l-replace-sleeve.html


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Sep 10, 2013)

For what it costs, the size and weight, I think it is an excellent lens.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Sep 10, 2013)

It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.

Hot air balloon ride 






Beartooth Highway 





My old Scout 





Grain elevator 





Tiny world of my house





And finally the shot right before I almost lost my 5d mkii and 17-40 to the ocean


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



Take it if you must, I wasn't discussing TS lenses here, and comparing them to lenses with no movements, really isn't a fair comparison...especially if you are engaging the movements.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 10, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.
> 
> Hot air balloon ride
> 
> ...



Nice shots, although I don't care for the sky in the second shot...and the last shot definitely was not worth the camera being knocked over on its tripod...glad it wasn't damaged! Was it just slightly off balance, or did the wind or water knock it over?


----------



## pulseimages (Sep 10, 2013)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> It is definitely a love hate relationship with my 17-40. I've taken some great shots with it, but nothing to impressive once I stepped up to the 5d mkii from a T1i. Corners are terrible on ff which I fear might be a result of a tripod failure and some volcanic rock. Most of my work is in landscape photography and recently I've been going for my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for landscape because of the sharpness, creating massive panoramas with them. I've been thinking about upgrading to the Tokina 16-28mm but filters are pretty important to me, without the filter on my 17-40, the fall it had would have made it a complete write off. Here are some of my favorite shots with the lens.
> 
> Hot air balloon ride
> 
> ...



Great images but what's a Gain Elevator?


----------



## nicku (Sep 10, 2013)

oooo Yes.... 

17-40 f/4L was my first L lens; i bought it in 2008.... I had used this lens on multiple bodies ( 400D, 40D, 7D...) in every possible condition, from the dessert powder like sand, heavy rain to the mountain peaks in winter at -25 degrees C. It never blocks ,fill with sand,water ice.... is really a workhorse.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 10, 2013)

I bought the 17-40 f4L when I had my 400D to replace the pretty woeful 18-55 II.

It did a good job at that. I liked the build. I liked the feel of the movements. I liked the idea of the weather sealing (although my body was not) I liked being able to use filters properly, I liked the speed and quietness of the AF and the images were GOOD.

BETTER than the 18-55 II.

But not better than the 18-55 IS I got with my 550D.
I had a 7D by this point as well (between the 400D and 550D) which I had bought primarily for video use and the f4 aperture was limiting for me (in video you want to use as low an ISO as you can, your shutter speed is ideally 1/50th, so an f4 is siginficantly less flexible in lower light)

I sold the 17-40 and held on to 18-55IS until a sigma f2.8 zoom came up. Which was better for my video work.

Maybe the 17-40 is a different propostion on full frame. For me it wasn't an exceptional lens, and the things I remember most fondly about it weren't particularly the images.


----------



## Gadger (Sep 10, 2013)

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 :-[


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 10, 2013)

These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
I had a choice between this and the 16-35 l and I went for 17-40 for reasons of price.
I wouldn't say the lens is the greatest ever but I think it's pretty good.
You can take very fine photographs with it. It's so a wide field of view that lack of sharpness in the corner isn't the end of the world. You can take a pretty sharp looking photograph with it. 
Alot of photos nowadays are seen on an iPhone from Flickr and Facebook and you definately won't show up flaws then. It takes filters and this is very important for me for landscape photography. The fact it's 77mm is handy in terms of adapters (and lost lens caps).
Maybe my version is better than others (or more compatible with the tolerances in my camera (5D MIII).
I would have to say I am fairly happy with it.
I have a 24 TSE II and I can use that to combine 3 shots for a fairly wide angle view with shift but it's much more convenient to do it with a 17-40mm straight off. The 17-40mm may not be as sharp as the 24 TSE II but for me it's sharp enough and with Live view I can ensure what I definately want in focus is in focus.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm for an APS-C camera. I loved this when I got it first. I just loved Wide Angle at the time. I think I'm not so wide angly any more. The 17-40 was an attempt to replicate this.
I also have the Samyang 14mm which I've used very successfully for Wide Field Astrophotography. It's great for this. It gives me Super Wide Angle if needs be. It's pretty sharp. I have the Samyang 8mm Fisheye. I thought that was great fun on a APS-C camera.
I think now I'm more taking landscapes at 24mm. It's less distorted and I have to think harder about composition rather than fitting it all in.
Anyway a thumbs up from for the 17-40mm. Don't use it too often but it works for me when I do.
If you want to see what I do with this gear here is my Flickr Page.
I wouldn't claim to be the world's greatest photographer or anywhere near that.
I do enjoy it alot and I find Canon Rumors very interesting.
The technical knowledge here is remarkable.
www.flickr.com/fergalocallaghan


----------



## Rick (Sep 10, 2013)

Hector1970 said:


> 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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadger said:


> 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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > These reviews are always interesting as is the wide variety of comments and experiences.
> ...


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 (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadger said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Gadger said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Sep 10, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Except when you want to zoom...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 10, 2013)

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2013)

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


----------



## MichaelHodges (Sep 10, 2013)

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 (Sep 11, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

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 (Sep 11, 2013)

NickM43 said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

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 (Sep 11, 2013)

stevejwphoto said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

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 (Sep 11, 2013)

stevejwphoto said:


> 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).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> stevejwphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 17-40 better for distortion compared to the 16-35?
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Gadger said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



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!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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.



CarlTN said:


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



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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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




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 (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

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


----------



## Jim O (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



As Yoda would say:

Fairly transparent, that was.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 11, 2013)

Jim O said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



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 (Sep 11, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## wayno (Sep 11, 2013)

Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
Too much angst on here sometimes about things just not worth getting angsty about.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 11, 2013)

wayno said:


> Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
> Too much angst on here sometimes about things just not worth getting angsty about.



I have angst, but what I've said here is not really born of that. It's just born of my thought process in my own pursuit of shopping for wide angle lenses...I wish I could get paid to write subjective reviews. It's not difficult. Far more difficult to become a great photographer...


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 11, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


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



;D


The first picture is hilarious - and well produced.


----------



## Frodo (Sep 11, 2013)

I shoot wide a lot. I have a 24-105 - apparently a good copy that I'm happy with. Had the EF20 f2.8 that was awful. replaced it with a 20-35 f3.5-4.5, which was much sharper at 20mm than the 20mm. Sold it to get a Samyang 14 f2.8. Very sharp, even to the edges, don't lose much when correcting distortion with LR. Its getting repaired - focus jammed and I'm not even sure what happened (i.e. I didn't drop it).

What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm. Something like the TS without the movements. I'd even settle for f4. I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper. But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult? A sharp 17mm, corner to corner? Zeiss 18mm?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2013)

wayno said:


> Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
> Too much angst on here sometimes about things just not worth getting angsty about.



Yarp, there's a lot of weirdos who are "into" photography and think they are experts...unfortunatly, they usually are expert forum trolls....which is why photography forums are full of weirdos and weird opinions. 

My take on the 17-40L....it's one of the biggest selling lenses of all time. It delivers great results, it's an old design which makes it cheap but with plenty of scope for a mkII improvement. 

As to the weird Nikkon f4 lens with VR....so people are using it on a d800 to handhold? Right? Surely that's an oxymoron right there....Tripod it and switch the VR off. Putting a VR unit into a lens doen't make it better or great. A 17mm lens can be hand held down to 1/20th second. If a photographer needs a VR unit becuase their shutter speed is lower and no tripod....then I wonder if any of their photos have any stature due to their lack of preparation and foresite.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoyable and interesting review, Justin. I echo your sentiments and thats the review id have written also.
> ...



Yeah, I kind of agree with the VR thing. Never had a hand-holding vs. shutter speed issue with my wide angles. Haven't really used IS on anything wider than the 24-70 f/4 and even then, not sure if it made much of a difference. A few ideas I have about potentially using WA + IS would be for wedding shooters going for an abstract long exposure, people wanting to take photos where tripods aren't allowed (lots of international landmarks are like this) or just the casual photographer going for a stroll. Or people like me who maybe had a bit too much coffee in the morning.

And yes, the Nikon, as I mentioned, is great on its own merits. VR is just an accessory after the fact.


----------



## robbinzo (Sep 12, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Is the 17-40 really a metal body? Mine appears to be engineering plastic as the main body with a metal zoom ring.



+1


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

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).


----------



## surapon (Sep 12, 2013)

Dear Friends

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Enjoy
Surapon


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Friends
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
> 
> ...



Thanks, I never read that one... though it's comparing the 17-40 to the 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1)... so while the empirical tests on the 17-40 are still very good, the comparison is less relevant... unless of course someone's buying a used 16-35 version 1 ;D


----------



## Jim O (Sep 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> 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...


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

Jim O said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Some more 17-40 photos, because that's what lenses are for 8)
> ...



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


----------



## surapon (Sep 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Friends
> ...



Thanks you, Sir, Dear Mr. JVLphotos.
You are right, That Old comparision at the time that the New mark II not on the market yet.
Thanks again.
Surapon


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > wayno said:
> ...



As a wedding photographer myself, I've had a need for a VR/IS on an ultra wide. The only time I need a tripod is shooting a low light venue exterior shot (ideally at cross over light), which is usually around 30 secs @ f16. Yes that needs a pod, no question and no VR can ever replace that function. I've never had issues with venues and permission to use a pod....after all, I'm the official photographer! I did a wedding a few years back in Canterbury Cathedral's crypt and that was DARK! Shot under candle light, my fast primes and 16-35IIL did a fine job. Unfortunatly the brides older sister who married in the same venue two years previously and hired a.nother photographer...didn't fare so well! 

Personally, I love to shoot wide open and I like the softer corners and slight vignetting....it saves me a job in LR later....if I need the corners sharp then I'll stop down. Most landscapes are shot between f8 to f16, most UW lenses perform amazingly well at those apertures, but it baffles me why people compare wide open lens charts...when most of them aren't used in that capacity. For landscapes, even old mid range lenses perfrom really well.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

I recently read a neat technique using Lightroom 5's new radial tool to create an inverse sharpening overlay. So instead of drawing a circle just to create a vignette (yes, I'm very guilty of this) you can use that space to sharpen the edges a bit to help balance the image.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Sep 12, 2013)

Frodo said:


> What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm. Something like the TS without the movements. I'd even settle for f4. I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper. But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult? A sharp 17mm, corner to corner? Zeiss 18mm?



I have the Zeiss 18/3.5 on my 5D mk III, and the lens is very sharp corner to corner. This lens is also rated as one of the ten sharpest lenses tested by the Swedish magazine Foto, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftidningenfoto.se%2Fde-skarpaste-objektiven-fotos-tio-i-topp-lista%2F%23Carl%2520Zeiss%2520Distagon%2520T*%252018%2F3%2C5%2520ZF. småbildskamera = full frame camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 12, 2013)

nicke said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > What I'd really like is a nice sharp 17mm. Something like the TS without the movements. I'd even settle for f4. I'd even take the 17-40 f4 if it was sharper. But in this age of super teles and zooms, is my request so difficult? A sharp 17mm, corner to corner? Zeiss 18mm?
> ...



Seriously. Imagine what innovating Canon would have to do if Zeiss had AF lenses we could use in our mount. I've pondered getting one of their magical wide primes for some time for landscape work, which I'd shoot largely in LiveView. But AF would be so useful for non-tripod work.

What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway? It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware... Is it a trade agreement or something, and if so, why would Zeiss leave all that money on the table? Did they strike an AF-exclusivity deal with Sony? Just curious.

- A


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> nicke said:
> 
> 
> > Frodo said:
> ...



I wonder if AF just interferes with the optics somehow? More electronic bits inside make less room for sweet sweet glass.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> What's the genesis of not having AF on Canon/Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses, anyway? It's not a patent thing, is it, b/c the other 3rd party lens folks reverse-engineer AF function into their hardware...



... and they are still having issues with it, but fortunately Sigma now has the one working solution for it with the usb dock to update the lens fw and do other corrections, let's hope other 3rd party manufacturers will follow.


----------



## Joynt Inspirations (Sep 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## JVLphoto (Sep 12, 2013)

Joynt Inspirations said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



Not teams that beat the Bruins! Hahaha.


----------



## jasonsim (Sep 14, 2013)

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 (Sep 30, 2013)

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 (Nov 21, 2013)

kobeson said:


> 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 (Jan 24, 2014)

> 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 (May 11, 2014)

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 (May 12, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> > 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 12, 2014)

l_d_allan said:


> 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 (May 21, 2014)

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.


----------

