17-40L or???

troutfisher

troutfisher

Messages
2,981
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
A bit of help please.
I am thinking of buying a 5Dc to go with my 40D.
If I do that my siggy 10/20 could well be redundant.
The logical replacement is a Canon 17/40L,any other suggestions for a wide angle on FF.?
BTW my other lenses are a 24/105 L a 70/200 f4 L a 100/400L and a siggy 30 f1.4.

Chris
 
The 16-35 seems to get much better reviews on full frame. Less barrel distortion apparently. If you are used to your 10-20 the distortion probably wont bother you...and for the massive price jump you might be happy to live with it :)
 
Depends what you want it for I guess.

I use my 17-40 as a landscape lens on a 1.3 crop 1D Mark2 and Full frame film camera. f4 isn't really restrictive for my landscapes and the weather sealing when combined with 1D2 means I'm relaxed about shooting in dire weather.

I guess it boils down to weather f4 is fast enough for your needs, what weather sealing you require and obviously whether 17 is wide enough or whether you want to go to 12mm
 
the 17-40 is a good lens for the price. At 17mm mine has a bit of barrel distortion and is slightly soft on the left hand side. By 19 or so mm all of this abberation is gone. I too wouldn't mind the 16-35 as it's f/2.8, BUT, one thing that I do find valuable about the 17-40 is that last part - it goes to 40mm. It's only 5 more mm but I do use it and I think if I had a 16-35 I'd miss the extra length.

Having said all of that even if I had money to spare I doubt I would sell the 17-40 and go out and get a 16-35. I just don't think it's worth twice as much, and my work doesn't require the wide aperture.
 
Last edited:
I've been very happy with the 17-40 on my 5D and it gets used a lot, mostly in an urban/architectural context.

It made a good mid-range zoom on the 300D I had before that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybertect/tags/canonef1740mmf4lusm/

f/4 is occasionally limiting, but I have a 35mm f/2 for those occasions.

Jimmy_Lemon said:
The 16-35 seems to get much better reviews on full frame. Less barrel distortion apparently
Click to expand...

I've not used the 16-35, but I've never noticed serious problems with distortion on the 17-40. Lightroom/ACR's lens corrections makes it rather academic anyhow. :)
 
Musicman said:
I've not used the 16-35, but I've never noticed serious problems with distortion on the 17-40. Lightroom/ACR's lens corrections makes it rather academic anyhow. :)
Click to expand...
:agree: Unless I'm missing something, software correction of distortion (and vignetting) makes it academic unless you want to do minimal post processing...

I have the 17-40 and Sigma 12-24 and the 17-40 is a better lens than the Siggy (sharpness and colour rendition).
 
I had the siggy 12-24, loved the uwa of this lens and its minimal distortion, but my 2nd hand copy suffered extreme softness down the right side. Traded it in for a new 17-40, could never justify twice the price for the 16-35 II with little visible difference in quality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top