Canon EF 17-40 F4.0L

photopainter

photopainter

Messages
744
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just bought a canon 50d with cannon 100mm macro lens, i am looking for a nice sharp Landscape / General lens, can anyone recommend this 17-40 lens or advise on an alternative, is it worth paying for the canon version?

Any help would be gratefully received.
help.gif
 
The 17-40 f4L virtually lives on the front of my 50D and did on my 450D before it. Very sharp and great for landscape stuff. Not long enough for a general walkabout lens from my point of view (but then neither was the 18-55mm kit lens either) but a great lens nonetheless.
 
Try out the efs 17-55 2.8 IS USM.

Has only been off my 50D a handful of times to let me
use my 100mm 2.8 macro ;)
 
Merovingian said:
[waits for the usual, predictable but banal 17-40 v 16-35 debate]
Click to expand...

Or the more relevant debate, why are you using full frame EF lenses on a crop camera when the EF-S 17-55 or 10-22 was designed specifically for it, and are better?

EF 17-40 4 is a lovely lens on full frame, but for crop the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is sharper, has more range, is f/2.8 and has IS. Sounds like a no brainer to me ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Or the more relevant debate, why are you using full frame EF lenses on a crop camera when the EF-S 17-55 or 10-22 was designed specifically for it, and are better?..../QUOTE]

Completely agree. Full frame = 16-35mm vs 17-40mm. Crop body = EF-S 17-55mm vs 10-22mm. (y)
Click to expand...
 
HoppyUK said:
Or the more relevant debate, why are you using full frame EF lenses on a crop camera when the EF-S 17-55 or 10-22 was designed specifically for it, and are better?
Click to expand...

Bit of an odd question don't you think? Why not use an EF lens on a crop body? It fits, has excellent image quality and is a fair bit cheaper than the 17-55. 10-22 better? I have both and the 17-40 has marginally better image quality in my experience, and is vastly superior to the 10-22 at focal lengths of 23mm and above :D

EF 17-40 4 is a lovely lens on full frame, but for crop the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is sharper, has more range, is f/2.8 and has IS. Sounds like a no brainer to me ;)
Click to expand...

I use my 17-40 mainly for landscapes so IS and an extra stop are irrelevant to me. 17-55 is sharper? Really? Blimey, must be sharp then. My 17-40 is sharper than my 10-22, which is sharper than a sharp thing. Then there's the price. Not all of us have bottomless pockets. So no, not entirely a no-brainer. :cautious:;)
 
Dudie said:
Bit of an odd question don't you think? Why not use an EF lens on a crop body? It fits, has excellent image quality and is a fair bit cheaper than the 17-55. 10-22 better? I have both and the 17-40 has marginally better image quality in my experience, and is vastly superior to the 10-22 at focal lengths of 23mm and above :D

I use my 17-40 mainly for landscapes so IS and an extra stop are irrelevant to me. 17-55 is sharper? Really? Blimey, must be sharp then. My 17-40 is sharper than my 10-22, which is sharper than a sharp thing. Then there's the price. Not all of us have bottomless pockets. So no, not entirely a no-brainer. :cautious:;)
Click to expand...

The OP makes no mention of price, which is why I haven't either, and is looking for alternatives to the 17-40L, hence the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS recommendation.

If you use a full frame lens on a crop camera, you are throwing away more than half of the image. On the other hand, if the lens designer doesn't have to worry about the much bigger image circle, then they can do a lot more.

The increase from f/4 to f/2.8 is very substantial in optical terms - look at the price difference between the 17-40L and 16-35L, and the 70-200L 2.8 over the f/4 version, or the 300L 2.8 over the f/4 version. The cost increases there are all very much more than with this EF-S lens, and with this one you get a heck of a lot more range, too. Plus you get IS, which while you might not find of much value, most people do; that is also a high cost extra in most lenses.

On top of all that, the 17-55 2.8 is sharper than the 17-40L (see Canon's MTF here http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955 ) and it also has less distortion.

There are big optical benefits to using crop format, especially with lenses designed specifically for it. Why not take advantage of them? Sounds like a bit of a bargain to me.
 
The 17 - 40L suffers from barrel distortion from 17 mm to about 25mm on full frame.

I don't remember it being so bad on my 40D, but it might be worth bearing in mind for the future, if you plan to upgrade to FF.

Barrel distortion can be sorted in software, but it means cropping so you lose a little of your image.
 
jerry12953 said:
The 17 - 40L suffers from barrel distortion from 17 mm to about 25mm on full frame.

I don't remember it being so bad on my 40D, but it might be worth bearing in mind for the future, if you plan to upgrade to FF.

Barrel distortion can be sorted in software, but it means cropping so you lose a little of your image.
Click to expand...

Also very true. My 24-105mm L IS USM has barrel distortion wider than about 28mm (on full frame body) that is easily corrected in DPP but crops about 1 to 2mm off the sides.
 
Thanks guys, bearing in mind the information about the crop sensor I think im going to take a look at the 17-55 f2.8, cost does play a part but at the end of the day i've bought into a setup where i really want to see good results and enjoy the camera not fight against the lenses - I appreciate all your advice and comments, I am new to this and it can be a bit daunting especially spending this level of cash. I will keep you posted how i get on, and hopefully get an image which does the camera and lens justice. Thanks again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top