# 17-40mm advice please!



## Sith Zombie (Mar 1, 2013)

Hi All
My Efs 17-85 broke awhile ago so I have been looking into getting a new lens. 
I'm almost settled on going with the 17-40mm because:

I have a £600 budget [no 16-35mm]
Am a crop user that will upgrade to FF soon.
I mainly shoot with in 24-35mm range but would sometimes like wider, say 20mm
I'm mainly do landscapes in the day [but don't usually use a tripod]

Before I buy, I would like to ask is there another lens option somebody knows about/ can recommend? I'v been using a tamron 17-50mm for a few weeks that I like but I don't think it will work on FF. I'm also thinking they could possibly update the 17-40mm soon [it's like what? 10 years old?] to include IS and better optics but still f4 as so not to compete with the 16-35mm, anyone else think this is a possibility?

Thank you in advance!


----------



## Scarpz13 (Mar 1, 2013)

I had the Tamron 17-50 but sold it for the 17-40 a couple months before i moved to full frame. The tamron is faster (obviously) and sharper; but Cannot be used on full frame. The 17-40 proved a nice walkround lens on my 60d, but i seem to rarely reach for it with my 5Diii. It is VERY wide on full frame; my 24-105 is plenty wide for me, but i have not really been a landscape shooter up to this point. 

Granted you may not have alot of options comparable to the 17-40 in the $600 range. Id say its a nice choice; but only if you plan to go full frame sooner than later. If full frame is a couple years away still, id go with the Tamron. It takes great sharp pictures and is a bit more versatile; the 17-40 only beats it in build quality and of course full frame compatibilty.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks, yeah the tamron is good, AF a little slow but not a problem for me really. I was also considering the 24-105 because it'll cover 90% of what I like to shoot but it's not a great lens for crop and I'm unsure when I'll move to FF, possibly a 5dmkiii at the end of the year but could be later.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 1, 2013)

Consider getting a used 17-55, 15-85 or the Tamron 17-50. Getting a good crop lens will give you more flexibility for when you choose to switch to full frame. Upon deciding to move to full frame, sell the crop lens and get the FF camera with the kit lens. The money you lose on the used transaction should be less than the difference of buying the 24-105 in a kit versus now separately. If 17mm on a crop is wide enough for you, then 24mm on full frame will work too once you move full frame.


----------



## crasher8 (Mar 1, 2013)

If you are positive that you will move to FF then you have a few choices but none of them stellar. I had a couple 17-40's and finally got around to a 16-35 which I really enjoy. Albeit it's not the sharpest in the corners and does suffer from a bit of flare but still a very good lens. The 17-40 is troublesome in low light of course and suffers from similar flare and corner issues. 
If you are going to stay with a crop for any length of time I strongly urge you to rent or buy a Canon 10-22. Great value and it's shortcomings are easily corrected in Post. Retains it's value well and you'll recoup 95% in a sale when you go to FF.


----------



## tomscott (Mar 1, 2013)

A lot of people say they will upgrade to full frame but when? It is a must for most but a lot dont and fixate on it too much. Buy what will give you the most benefit now. 

The 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the best standard zoom lens available for a crop sensor camera so I would go with that. I shot professionally with this lens for 3 years and its so good I kept it to use on my back up body. 

Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS 

The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop with no IS depends if that is important, it will allow making the move easier, but full frame is generally twice the price of crop so decide what is urgent now rather than later.

The 17-40mm is nice on crop tho, and is a good price. The 17-40mm on FF doesn't perform as well as others tho, it is a little soft in the corners.


----------



## KimH (Mar 1, 2013)

I have the 17-40 and in spite of what often is said i am happy with it. Decent sharpness, not a brutal pincushion (like 24-105 has at 24..!!) , L-Build, light and ---- affordable.

On a crop camera i default to the 17-55 2.8 - it is a magnificent lens. I would say it's a L-Grade EF-S lens in sharpness, not quite there in build. Not sure what they sell for in Pound-Sterling, might be 100-150 more.

So the real decision paramter is how fast you switch to FF. If you want it NOW and you plan FF, then 17-40 is not a bad choice. IMO


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 1, 2013)

tomscott said:


> The 17-40mm is nice on crop tho, and is a good price. The 17-40mm on FF doesn't perform as well as others tho, it is a little soft in the corners.



I've got the 17-40L on crop because of the usual ff upgrade scenario - and though the lens lacks corner sharpness on ff (if you really need/want that) it's not that sharp anywhere on crop but outresolved by the sensor until f8. So for tripod brackets or bright daylight handheld it's very nice, good build quality and decent price (and it's a Canon, believe it or not ), but it definitely doesn't qualify as a photojournalism lens.

Reminder 1: Even if shooting ff with better iso capability you will still want to shoot at lower iso for the max. dynamic range, so the lack of IS might be still a problem.

Reminder 2: There seem to be more than the usual amount of "bad copies" out there, so check for decentering, I had to return my first lens. On stellar lenses like the 24-70ii a little less performance doesn't show until you're using a high mp camera, but with the mediocre 17-40 sharpness every problem shows.


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 1, 2013)

This is actually somewhat difficult, although generally the 17-40mm zoom is an excellent lens for its price.

I wouldn't bother too much regarding individual lens design flaws, because whatever you purchase has to fit into your budget. You can still produce good photos with these zoom lenses.

@Sith Zombie: Would this 17-40mm lens be the your only lens? If so, I strongly advise to take a look at the 24-105mm zoom. It is not very expensive, but highly versatile, while the 17-40mm zoom on full-frame is a dedicated wide angle zoom, so you would be fairly limited in what you can do overall. On full-frame you may find that 24mm is wide enough often enough that the additional focal length range of the 24-105mm will do you more good than the the lost wide angle range compared to the 17-40mm lens will be an issue.

Do compare both lenses on a full-frame body, not on a crop body. On crop the 17-40mm lens provides you with a very reasonable, although not very wide focal length range, while the 24-105mm lens will be limited regarding wide angle capability, so the comparison you make on a crop body won't hold true on a full-frame body with the focal lengths of both lenses appearing to be much shorter.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 1, 2013)

@Ambientlight, I'v got a 50mm too. With regard to the 24-105, yes I really like the idea of this lens as it would cover most of what I do [24mm to 35mm, and occasionally dipping into short telephoto] but that's on FF, on a crop I don't think the range is that good for me. Random orbits mentioned about getting it with the ff body, which I think is a good idea. 
@everyone else, thanks for your input its appreciated :] I'v been thinking 'what lens will be best now and future proofed for FF' but now Im thinking maybe just get the best lens now for crop and worry about FF when I actually get it. Thanks


----------



## marinien (Mar 1, 2013)

tomscott said:


> Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS
> 
> The 17-40mm is 27-64mm F4 on crop



Just to avoid some confusion:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS.
The 17-40mm f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop.


----------



## Jan Jasinski (Mar 1, 2013)

Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is about the same price and works on FF.
Very sharp (even more than 16-35 II) but lens flare isn't as well controlled...


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 1, 2013)

The 17-40 just like the 24-105 suffers from somewhat very split opinions in the world of camera enthusiasts. On one hand you read about both that they are very good lenses that deliver good results (on a scale where "very good" would be 70-200 4L or 100mm 2.8L and "excellent" would be 135L or 24-70L II), on the other hand people rage about it not being L worthy for their lack of quality. Truth is there is a wide variety of quality throughout the lenses of the same type - there are 17-40 that are just a bit better than others.

I never had a really wide lens until some months ago when I got a Samyang 14mm and was very happy with it and also with the focal length - ultra wide angle just rocks if done right. I loved it so much I wanted to get an automatic and if possible weather sealed lens. After looking around the possibilities I ended up with either 17-40 or 16-35. As the 16-35 was a bit out of my limit I decided to get a 17-40 first, maybe I will upgrade later because of better image quality and one additional stop, but I must say I like it for now. Of course there are some distortions in the corners, well it's quite some very wide angle so I can live with that. Combined with a post processing correction program like DxO optics I am very satisfied with the results it delivers. Plus it's weather sealed if you apply a filter. I must say for its wider angle it's more a walkaround lens for me than my Tamron 24-70, it's lighter and faster and when going on a hike or something I just like the extra milimeters in the lower range.

So to conclude I say get a good 17-40 when you can. Upgrade is always a possibility these days.

All of the above of course only applies if you plan to change to full frame soon. Otherwise there are better choices for crop bodys.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 1, 2013)

If you are going FF soon then get the kit lens (24-105) with the 5d3 or 6D since it costs about $450 when bought as a kit. normally you'd pay about 750-800 for it.

It will be as wide as 15mm is on crop, so plenty wide that you may not need the 17-40. But at that range, there are few UWA's that rival the 17-40L.


----------



## pedro (Mar 1, 2013)

Which other lenses do you have? At the moment I am short of a WA with my 5D3 and saving up for the 16-35. On the 30D I used the 10-22 which is its equivalent on a crop body. So for the moment I am using an 28 f/2.8 if I wanna go wider. In case you are not in a hurry to go FF, I'd wait. Sure, the wait depends on your saving scheme. I cannot throw in a lot of money per month. But even though it takes a while, itis time well used to work the learning curve with the new cam. 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 1, 2013)

Jan Jasinski said:


> Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is about the same price and works on FF.
> Very sharp (even more than 16-35 II) but lens flare isn't as well controlled...



The flare control is not to be underestimated on uwa, the 17-40 is said to be even better than the 16-35 here, and I have shot against many light sources with my 17-40 and never saw a flare. With the Tokina 16-28 it's quite the reverse, you'll see halos all over the place - there was a recent thread with sample shots on this.


----------



## Zv (Mar 2, 2013)

I made the jump to FF last year, sold my 10-22 and bought the 17-40 as my UWA. I was a bit apprehensive at first as I loved my 10-22 but I have to say the 17-40 is sharper and has better contrast. And it's built like to last. Sure, corners are a bit soft wide open at 17mm but for landscapes you wouldn't use it at f/4. The 35 - 40mm range is really nice IMO which makes for a pretty decent walkaround on either crop or FF. Depends on what you shoot of course. 

I also have the 17-55 which is a very useful lens, though I don't entirely agree with the price! Buy it second hand then sell it once you move to FF if you go that route. The IS on the lens is actually pretty good, I can get about 3 stops from it. Very useful for night landscape and urban shots where run and gun style is pref over tripods. Wide open performance is surprisingly good too, quite sharp. A great lens for portraits and occasional landscapes. It is built well but it still makes me nervous when it dangling at my side on a r-strap. Lens creeps like a mofo. 

If you are really into the wide angle perspective 24mm won't cut it on FF. To be honest I think 17mm is not wide enough for my tastes but it gets the job done.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 2, 2013)

I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose. If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II. If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well. From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens. Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well. It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.




Chase the Sun by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr




Winter's Splendor #4 - Ripples by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

The recommendations on getting the 24-105L in a kit when you go FF is a very good one. I think that getting a used 17-40L is a smart move for now, as it is a better focal length for crop in the meantime. If you decide to move it down the road, you will likely get just about everything out of it that you paid for it.

I also really, really love my Tamron 24-70VC. I moved my 24-105L after owning the Tamron for a few months. It has become my go-to general purpose lens. It works well for landscape




Road to Perdition by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

But also has very smooth transition to out of focus like a prime:




Some Christmas Cheer by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr




Autumn Gold by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

It is very flare resistant, too.


----------



## Niterider (Mar 2, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose. If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II. If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well. From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens. Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well. It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.



Great pictures Dustin! I like the third one the best. As far as the first one goes, I personally find the sky too blue. In Lightroom 4, the vibrance slider is very aggressive on blues and turning it up to make the yellows, oranges, and reds pop, can often result in this effect. Just a personal preference though I guess.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Mar 2, 2013)

I recently went through this and ultimately decided on the Tokina 16-28. Time will tell if it's a good choice. But it was the same price (or actually a bit cheaper) than the 17-40 which I just couldn't bring myself to buy. My almost sole focus is video though, so it's in that context.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 2, 2013)

Niterider said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I think the question in UWA really boils down to your purpose. If you are wanting dramatic portrait or wedding shots (and thus might be making money with it), I would recommend the 16-35II. If you are going to be stopping down a lot and shooting landscapes, then the 17-40L will work just as well. From f/8 on the 17-40L is a very strong lens. Great color rendition and renders distant details exceptionally well. It also handles flare very well and has less distortion than, say, the 24-105L.
> ...



It is a matter of preference, for sure, but fortunately these days in Lightroom you can control saturation and luminosity on the individual color channels. It gives you a lot more processing flexibility without leaving LR


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 2, 2013)

Wow yeah, great pics. I think I'll go for the 17-40 for now but that Tamron is looking awesome too


----------



## Niterider (Mar 2, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Niterider said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Definitely, I am just used to seeing people adjust the vibrance slider and never touch the HSL individual color channels. Since vibrance adjust the least saturated colors, it is often overdone and the effect is apparent in the transitions of colors (it looks very harsh). This is more of a generalization about LR4 edited photos. Your pictures definitely looked balanced and not overdone in terms of color management though. Keep doing what your doing!


----------



## Rocky (Mar 2, 2013)

I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 3, 2013)

Rocky said:


> 17-55mm may be a better deal.



In general +1 (and I'd advice people to look at the 15-85, too) - unless you want a sealed lens with L build quality, after my non-L 100mm macro broke down twice I don't underestimate that point anymore.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 3, 2013)

Rocky said:


> I have been using the 17-40mm as my main lens for the last 7 years on crop body. I got no complain. CA, vignetting and distortion of 17-40mm are better than the 17-55mm 2.8 (based on the DSLR gera tets result). 17-55 2.8 wins in sharpness. For about $400 more you got a 1 stop faster lens and IS. 17-55mm may be a better deal.



I would say that if you were talking crop only, the 17-55 is definitely a better choice. It gives you far more creative options and a stronger focal length that moves into portrait lengths, too. If the goal is to move to FF in the foreseeable future, the 17-40L becomes the better choice for obvious reasons.


----------



## pgsdeepak (Mar 3, 2013)

I bought a 17-40mm a couple of months back for my 40D and I have plans to go FF in a month or two. I rented the lens a few times in the past as well. I always got good results with the lens (of course according to my standards, and I am not a pro, just a hobbyist). I tried 16-35 L II and EF-S 15-85. I could not utilize the 16-35 properly, so it potential is still a mystery to me. 15-85 is excellent with its range going from 15 to 85mm. IQ was also great. But I like the 17-40s color and contrast better (just a personal preference). And its my only lens with a red ring, so lets say, that also factored in to my purchase decision ;D

17-40 samples below


----------



## Jim K (Mar 3, 2013)

I would get the 24-105 as a kit lens when you get your FF body. As others have said, you can't beat the discount price when the 24-105 comes in the kit. That's what I did.

I like my 17-40 as an UWA when I am shooting FF landscapes. Stopped down to f/8-11 it is as good as the 16-35.


----------



## Skirball (Mar 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> I made the jump to FF last year, sold my 10-22 and bought the 17-40 as my UWA. I was a bit apprehensive at first as I loved my 10-22 but I have to say the 17-40 is sharper and has better contrast. And it's built like to last. Sure, corners are a bit soft wide open at 17mm but for landscapes you wouldn't use it at f/4.



How are the corners compared to the 10-22? I'm in a similar situation, having recently picked up a 6D. My 10-22 was my workhorse, as the only professional work I do is RE & architecture. I loved the thing, with the exception of CA at 10mm. I figure I'll just rent a 17-40 and 16-35 for my next job and see for myself, but figured I'd ask since you've had the first hand experience... and liked your 10-22 as well.


----------



## Rui Brito (Mar 14, 2013)

I know it´s a bit off topic, but...
EF-S 17-85 broken as on this link?
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/lenses/Replacing-Aperture-Cable-in-17-85mm-Lens.html
It can be repaired, I´ve repaired mine. Time consuming, but cheaper than a new lens. Not for the fainted heart though.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 14, 2013)

marinien said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Although the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm F4 IS
> ...



You don't lose a stop and a half by cropping. You must mean 'as it pertains to DOF'. Just to avoid confusion.


----------



## tomscott (Mar 14, 2013)

No what he means is the depth of field, not that you loose a stop and a half of light.


----------



## astevenscr (Mar 14, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> marinien said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



Furthermore, I think this example can't be quite right for even DOF. Note that the o.p. says: 
The 17-55 is the full frame equivalent of 27-88 f/4.5 IS; AND
the 17-40 f/4 is equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop

but how can the equivalent f/stop for DOF purposes increase both when you move to full frame and when you move to crop? Or am I missing something?


----------



## marinien (Mar 14, 2013)

astevenscr said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > marinien said:
> ...



Oh sorry! I wanted to use the same words as tomscott. He certainly understands the conversion, I think he had juste typed too fast . A longer statement would be:
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm f/4.5 IS on crop (I ignored the "on crop" in the previous post because the 17-55mm is a lens for crop bodies). 
The 17-40mm f/4 is the full frame equivalent to 27-64mm f/6.4 on crop. 

@3kramd5: thanks for the added detail, yes, I meant DoF equivalent.


----------

