17-40 f/4 L - Worthy?

Grant

Grant

Messages
733
Edit My Images
No
Hey guys,

Firstly, my set up is a Tokina 12-24 f/4 & Canon EOS 20D.

It's taken some corkers in its time, but now I'll shortly be moving up to the 5D MK II. I'm wanting a lens that will achieve similar results as my Tokina 12-24, without breaking the bank!

I'd looked at a few pieces of glass, such as the Sigma 12-24, but I'm not happy with 4.5-5.6. Then there's f/2.8 versions, and primes, and the costs are just insane! Especially after the dent the Mk II will make.

So I think I'm quite settled on the 17-40 f/4 L. I'm sure focal lengths will be similar to my cropped sensor, so I'll be happy there, and it's a little better build quality to compensate for the Mk II too.

My only gripe is that I'm paying £480 for a lens that might not be the best I could get.

If anyone has any opinions on the lens (whose actually used it!) or on a lens that might suite be better?! Thanks!

p.s. Landscapes, HDR, Studio work. That's the basics. And I LOVE Wide Angle! So nothing else, please!
 
The 17-40 is a great workhorse type lens. The quality is pretty good but as you've most likely guessed by the far more expensive bits or glass out there, it's not the best.

I use mine with the aged 5D lots when I need something wider than I can get on the Mamiya and it's more than up to the task of providing images for clients that get used to A3 and sometimes well beyond in print.

You get the usual canon L decent build and the distortion at the wide end, while definitely noticeable is not too bad for a pretty wide bit of glass. (FF speaking)
 
I had the 17-40 on my 20D - was definitly as sharp as the Tokina 12-24 that I now use - shame it wasn't wide enough.
So I would say you'll be fine with the 17-40.
 
Also have this lens and love the results. Only downside is the lack of reach, but based on your current set up this does not seem such a concern.
 
It's a nice lens but does have one major drawback which is distortion of close tall subjects, apart from that it's fine.
Gary Wood said:
The 17-40 is a great lens i have just sold a 16-35 2.8 because i never use it over the 17-40
Click to expand...
I use my 16-35 for shots that I know the 17-40 is going to distort badly, because it just has so little distortion with it.
 
Im in the same boat, thinking about full frame in the future.

I love my 10-22 but obviously wont fit on FF.

The 16-35 would be top choice but not going to pay £950 for it. Leaves the 17-40, and Sigma 12-24. Im liking how wide the Sigma would be, but heard bad things about quality control.
 
I don't own either the 17-40mm or 16-35mm, because in a recent kit review, I elected to stick with crop-format and the EF-S 10-22mm does it for me thanks ;)

However, I tried both on a 5D and have to say that the lovely 16-35mm f/2.8 is a heck of a lot of money for what, in practise, amounts to nothing more than an extra stop that I very rarely need on wide-angle (I have a fast prime for that).

Any optical shortcomings can be pretty much wiped out with a mouse click if you run your Raws through DPP v3.5 which comes bundled with the 5D/2 :)

Richard.
 
I sold the 17-40 and got the 16-35mk2 for the extra stop
but the 17-40 is a fantastic lens.
 
Love mine on the 40D, gives me that bit more wideness than the 24-105 round the house and produces some lovely results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top