# Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?



## STEMI_RN (Nov 3, 2012)

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?


----------



## JBeckwith (Nov 3, 2012)

I am also considering the 17-40. I currently have a 24-105 f4L but I see most of my favorite landscape work is done with the 17-40. I would be interested to hear if anyone has any personal experience with the 17-40 and how it compares to the 24-105 for landscape/nature photography.


----------



## dhofmann (Nov 3, 2012)

If you're using an APS-C camera like the 60D, the 15-85mm lens is sharper, wider and longer.


----------



## Policar (Nov 3, 2012)

The 17-40mm L is inexpensive and weather sealed and has great build quality. The center is contrasty and reasonably sharp, even wide open at 17mm. The corners are very soft until f8 or f11. Then they're sharper but with some CA. There's a lot of fall-off. But it's an inexpensive constant aperture ultrawide. For whatever strange reason, I like the bokeh.

On APS-C I would take either the 18-55mm IS or 17-55mm IS over this lens any day. I assume I'd take the 55-85mm, too. On FF, it's good for the price but it has some distortion and it's just okay optically. Not a bad lens, but not awe inspiring.

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is wonderful. The 70-200mm f2.8 (non-IS) is also very good if you have a tripod or steady hands and don't mind somewhat soft corners wide open; it's a very nice lens, really.

For landscape I'd go tilt shift rather than UWA zoom (you're using a tripod, so you might as well), but the price is so high! I've got big hopes for the 24mm Rokinon TS lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 3, 2012)

I'd reccomend the 17-55 if you have APS-C. For FF its a fair lens.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 3, 2012)

The 17-40 is excellent on aps-C. top notch build quality and very puncy. Im getting one soonish. On FF there are a few weak points. 
-very high vignetting
soft corners below f/8
and high distortion(which i will embrace and have fun with when I go FF, and correct in post if need be)

Note: the EF-S 15-85 is Very high in distortion at 15mm. Very sharp though. I have played with a friend's 17-40 and it is very vivid and punchy. Not sure if the 15-85 is too


----------



## BruinBear (Nov 3, 2012)

For APS-C i would not get this lens, the tamron or sigma 17-50 f/2.8's are sharper across the frame. 

On full frame this lens has pretty bad distortion, and is disgustingly soft in the corners. When stopped down the center is very sharp but the corners never really get to a usable point. For me this was fine and i had no reason to spend double the money on the 16-36 f/2.8.

So knowing the limitations for this lens, it still is a great lens for the money. Colors are good, and I can personally live with the terrible corners and theres always photoshop for distortion.






1Ds Mark III, 17-40 f/4L at 17mm, f/5.6, 1/80 s, ISO-100


----------



## fallenflowers (Nov 3, 2012)

The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. Like everyone else mentioned very sharp at f8 and up. In terms of image quality i would rate it par to my 135 f2, even sometimes sharper. but i have to disagree with the build quality. and this is the main reason why I think it cost lesser than other L lenses. 

my camera was attached to 17-40 on a tripod and it accidentally fell onto a rock (distance from camera fall to rock about 5 feet) resulting in a broken camera's lcd and due to impact my lens rear mount was also broken. In my opinion, due to that impact with any solid build lens, the rear mount should not break. Unfortunately the 17-40 lens did not stand the impact. So i gave it a 5/10 for built quality. I would not judge a lens' built quality by the looks and feels, until you actually experience the impact or any unwanted damages to it.


----------



## pwp (Nov 3, 2012)

You don't mention whether you're shooting with APS-C or FF. Clarifying that would help focus the discussion.
I have shot with a 17-40L for demanding professional work since it was first released in 2003. Vignetting & distortion issues are solved instantly & automatically on import into Lightroom if you have "Lens Correction" checked to run on Import.

As you shoot mostly landscape at F/8 & f/11 this lens should be perfect for you. While the 17-40 is mushy wide open, by f/5.6 it's looking extremely strong and is an IQ dead-heat with the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6 through to f/11. It's much lighter and far less expensive. And it takes 77mm filters.

If you're an APS-C shooter, the very highly regarded EF-S 10-22 is definitely worth considering.

EF-S 10-22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_10-22mm_lens
EF 17-40L http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_17-40mm_lens

-PW


----------



## Mark1 (Nov 3, 2012)

fallenflowers said:


> I would not judge a lens' built quality by the looks and feels, until you actually experience the impact or any unwanted damages to it.



Quite right. Let's all smash our lenses on the ground and see how well built they _really_ are. Presumabley you have done this to all of your lenses in order to determine that the 17-40 is the worst?

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-40. They are both very useful on a fullframe. The 17-40 is better than the 24-105 throughout their cross-over range, but that's not to say the 24-105 is a bad lens. They are both terrific but the 17-40 has much less field curvature than the 24-105 so for landscape is much better. Also the 17-40 produces a kind of punchiness to images that I really like. Sharpness doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't have that bubbley contrasty pop that this lens has. Personally I'm yet to see any CA of any concern from mine and light fall-off? it's an ultrawide lens - deal with it. It's just a really well engineered piece of kit and for the money you can't go wrong. I love mine!


----------



## wayno (Nov 3, 2012)

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


----------



## marekjoz (Nov 3, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> For APS-C i would not get this lens, the tamron or sigma 17-50 f/2.8's are sharper across the frame.



It depends on which focals. Check again


----------



## pedro (Nov 3, 2012)

*I've heard lots of good comments about the 17-40. I had it on my radar as a combo with my 5D3.*

But I kinda hold back now. As I do quite some nightsky/nightscape photography avoiding the star trails, exposure values get a bit short compared to my 28 2.8 non IS. Applying 600 rule with longest reach of 40 as divisor I get only 15 seconds out of it.

OTOH I struggle buying a Samyang 14mm 2.8 for just that photographical area.

Sorry for bringing that up again,* but I strongly hope Canon will come out with a 2.8 12/14-24 within my camera's body cylce at a "reasonable" price.* There is a third party lens outthere (Sigma) but the bulb design of the lens is not very handy for my purposes. As I am using strong ND filters while taking daylight longexposures of seacapes or lakes. Or are they forced to design it in that certain manner at this range?

Well, that's my two cents...


----------



## Zv (Nov 3, 2012)

On an APS-C the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is one of the best choices. I wouldn't advise the 17-40L, it's not wide enough (17mm = 27mm on a FF). 

There's also the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which is very highly regarded. 

If you're planning on moving to FF anytime soon those will not be a good choice. Maybe you should sell your gear and get a 5D mkII and 17-40L or 16-35 II, especially if you only shoot landscapes. Might as well get the right gear for the job.


----------



## rhysb123 (Nov 3, 2012)

I had the 24-105 L, I found it too 'standard' and not that exciting - great IQ though. I changed for the 17-40 L and LOVE it. Wide on FF (5dmk2) it's brilliant. 

It's a bargain. Buy it!


----------



## mihast (Nov 3, 2012)

I use 17-40 f/4L on 5Dmk2. 
As other posters already stated, it's a sharp lens in the centre with very soft corners and bad distortion. Surprisingly, I find the two weaknesses having synergistic effect for me. By fixing the distortion, corners get eliminated from the resulting image and the result is decently sharp. If you can live with ~18(19)-40 f/4 lens I can reccommend it to you. Use it at f/8 for best results, though.


----------



## dgarman (Nov 3, 2012)

*Reply to fallenflowers*

I also had my camera on a tripod with the 17-40 mounted and the wind blew it over. It was actually worse since i was on a slight hill and it fell lens first and skidded down an embankment.

Result - the lens had no damage at all (this was several years ago), and works perfectly. The lens hood is scratched quite a bit, and I'm a big believer in lens hoods, and of course watching how I set up the tripod more closely.

My experience is that this lens is incredibly well built. The operation is silk smooth.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 3, 2012)

Friend of mine dropped his 40D/17-40 down a flight of concrete stairs and his lens broke in half in the middle and made a big mess. canon put humpy dumpty back together for ~300 bucks and he says its better than it ever was.


----------



## bykes (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm using this lens on my 5d3. It's great. I was worried about the sharpness from all the reviews, but its not as bad as I thought I would be. It's focal range is really meant for a full frame sensor though. I wouldn't pair it with a crop body as the main walk around lens. It does distort alot on the wide end, but thats what wide angle lenses do. It can be managed with software.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 3, 2012)

fallenflowers said:


> The 17-40 is a fantastic lens. Like everyone else mentioned very sharp at f8 and up. In terms of image quality i would rate it par to my 135 f2, even sometimes sharper. but i have to disagree with the build quality. and this is the main reason why I think it cost lesser than other L lenses.
> 
> my camera was attached to 17-40 on a tripod and it accidentally fell onto a rock (distance from camera fall to rock about 5 feet) resulting in a broken camera's lcd and due to impact my lens rear mount was also broken. In my opinion, due to that impact with any solid build lens, the rear mount should not break. Unfortunately the 17-40 lens did not stand the impact. So i gave it a 5/10 for built quality. I would not judge a lens' built quality by the looks and feels, until you actually experience the impact or any unwanted damages to it.



I'm pretty sure almost all lenses are designed to break off at the lens mount in such a situation. Much better to have all that energy dissipated through snapping off the lens mount, a relatively easy part to fix, than to leave it to shatter the lens elements inside.


----------



## callaesthetics (Nov 3, 2012)

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


----------



## kaihp (Nov 4, 2012)

bykes said:


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


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


----------



## ud4steve (Nov 4, 2012)

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


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 4, 2012)

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

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

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

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


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 5, 2012)

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

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

Paul


----------



## STEMI_RN (Nov 5, 2012)

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


----------



## vlim (Nov 7, 2012)

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


----------



## yablonsky (Nov 14, 2012)

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

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


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 14, 2012)

STEMI_RN said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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


----------



## EOBeav (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## K-amps (Nov 14, 2012)

wayno said:


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



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


----------



## mitch.o (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## K-amps (Nov 14, 2012)

Zv said:


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



Factually Incorrect. 

17mm is 17mm on FF


----------



## killswitch (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## K-amps (Nov 14, 2012)

killswitch said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## perceptionist (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## rahkshi007 (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## Minh Nguyen (Nov 14, 2012)

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

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


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 14, 2012)

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


----------



## cayenne (Nov 14, 2012)

STEMI_RN said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## Rocky (Nov 14, 2012)

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 (Nov 14, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't advise the 17-40L, it's not wide enough (17mm = 27mm on a 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 (Nov 14, 2012)

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 (Nov 14, 2012)

killswitch said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> killswitch said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



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 (Nov 15, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2012)

tpatana said:


> rahkshi007 said:
> 
> 
> > 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..
> ...



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 (Nov 15, 2012)

Rocky said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2012)

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 (Nov 16, 2012)

STEMI_RN said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2012)

insanitybeard said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 21, 2012)

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 (Nov 21, 2012)

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.


----------

