17-40L series Canon

L

lancsoatcake

Messages
197
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Goig Jessops later to buy my first lens Worthy of attaching to my 7D body. The 17-40 above seems about the Focal length I'm after, but I'm a little concerned about there being no IS on it....

Quite simply....

Should I be?

Other lenses I'm looking at are 17-85 F4 and 15-85 f3.5...

Advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dan
 
As you have a crop sensor camera I would look at EF-s lenses before and EF lens in this focal range.

Two good crop lenses that canon do in this focal range are the 15-85 and the 17-55.
Both are really good lenses with good IQ with the first giving extra width and reach.

They are what I would look at before a 17-40 L (which is really a wide angle zoom for full frame cameras as a pose to a standard zoom)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something in the 17-50mm range and f2.8 makes much more sense IMHO than a shorter f4.
 
stupar said:
As you have a crop sensor camera I would look at EF-s lenses fefore and EF lens in this focal range.

Two good crop lenses that canon do in this focal range are the 15-85 and the 17-55.
Both are really good lenses with good IQ with the first giving extra width and reach.

They are what I would look at before a 17-40 L (which is really a wide angle zoom for full frame cameras as a pose to a standard zoom)
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
I was goi9ng to go down this route too but stuck out and bought the 17-55 efs lens, it has IS and the image quality is second to none. Plus the added bonus is it is f2.8

I would seriously be looking at this lens or any other efs lens in the range.

spike
 
Without doubt I would be looking at the 17-55mm IS. I have used it on a 400D and its a cracking lens!
 
I would look at the 17-55mm IS as well or the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 to save you some money, the Tamron 17-50mm is a cracking lens, but never tried it on a 7D
 
I have the 17-40 on my 500d and find it very good. I am told it is best used on a full frame camera, so it is good for if an when you want to upgrade.(y)
 
I have the 17-40 on my 1DMKIII, and i find it great but i think it will not be wide enough on a crop.I would luv it to be a f2.8 because there are many times i think f4 is to slow
 
I think its great on FF however if your plans are to go FF soon then this will make a decent walk around on crop. On crop though the good is useless.
 
The 17-40 speaks for itself


Stoned 3 by Nick Tsiatinis, on Flickr


Still by Nick Tsiatinis, on Flickr

Do you REALLY need IS on a 17-40? I'd say not - remember the 1/focal length rule. If you're at 40mm you need a shutter speed of 1/40th for a sharp image or 1/60th for crop. That's quite slow, should be achievable in most situations.

But yes, it's not that wide on a crop - the Sigma 10-20 usually gets good reviews - but if you have any intention of going ff the 17-40 is gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
It depends what it is for. 17-40 x 1.6 is Ok for a general walkabout, landscapes, etc. It is not any good for portraits or dark venues. What makes it special is 1) weathesealing 2) L-colours and saturation that most other lenses just don't have 3) FF-ready.

If f/2.8 is indeed important there are 3 options: 16-35mm f/2.8 - great colours, sealing and very expensive; 17-55 IS - IS, but expensive and very dust prone / not built as well; and something like Tamron 17-50 - affordable, sharp, but built more cheaply.

For portraits: Well it's has to be 70-200mm or at least 24-105mm (long end) if we are talking zooms.

Finally, if you are looking for a cheap casual snappy lens, then probably 15-85mm is enough and offers IS with a greater range, but it will be slow and devoid of selective focus capability.
 
postcardcv said:
I'm curious as to what makes the 17-40 a bad lens on a crop camera?
Click to expand...

Not bad perhaps but just not as good as others, 40mm just is not very long. The lens was after all designed as a wide zoom for ff cameras. There are much better options out there!
 
postcardcv said:
I'm curious as to what makes the 17-40 a bad lens on a crop camera?
Click to expand...
It's not a bad lens, just you can get lenses that are better suited, have IS and better aperture and cover just more range with similar picture quality.
 
postcardcv said:
I'm curious as to what makes the 17-40 a bad lens on a crop camera?
Click to expand...

When I was in this situation as to what lens to get i got told that it was not BAD on a crop sensor just not wide enough.

It still will take a fantastic photo but will not be wide enough for some people/situations.
Even in really good right ups its gets said its not for a crop sensor.

Thats why I went for the 17-55. I looked at the tamron but went with the canon.

The 17-40 is L lens quaulity and L lens built but its not for a crop sensor.

spike
 
Well, after all advice heeded, I thought it best to try them all out... Which I did in Jessops Trafford Centre this evening.

Thoughts...

Tamron 17-50 f2.8... Possible a bad manufacture or match to camera but images were far from sharp. Zooming in on subject I just could not see any advantage in taking this lens.

17-40L F4 nice but pricey. Images were sharp, seemed fast enough for me.

Canon 17-85 f4 Lens gave pictures of similar sharpness to the L series (to my untrained eye at least) and very reasonably priced with 3stop IS and USM.

Canon 17-55 F2.8 seemed to produce images similar to 17-85, but the added bonus of 2.8 means obviously going to be better in low light conditions, in terms of making subject stand out... Hmmm even at 55mm your going to be fairly close to subject so wasnt convinced that it was with paying more than double for the lens.

Verdict:

I went with the Canon 17-85mm being as it performed as well as the other 2 but was half the price. I appreciate your guys help here, but even if on paper I made the wrong choice, I wouldn't have been able to justify the money for the difference in image Quality. Thanks again,

Dan
 
lancsoatcake said:
Well, after all advice heeded, I thought it best to try them all out... Which I did in Jessops Trafford Centre this evening.

Thoughts...

Tamron 17-50 f2.8... Possible a bad manufacture or match to camera but images were far from sharp. Zooming in on subject I just could not see any advantage in taking this lens.

17-40L F4 nice but pricey. Images were sharp, seemed fast enough for me.

Canon 17-85 f4 Lens gave pictures of similar sharpness to the L series (to my untrained eye at least) and very reasonably priced with 3stop IS and USM.

Canon 17-55 F2.8 seemed to produce images similar to 17-85, but the added bonus of 2.8 means obviously going to be better in low light conditions, in terms of making subject stand out... Hmmm even at 55mm your going to be fairly close to subject so wasnt convinced that it was with paying more than double for the lens.

Verdict:

I went with the Canon 17-85mm being as it performed as well as the other 2 but was half the price. I appreciate your guys help here, but even if on paper I made the wrong choice, I wouldn't have been able to justify the money for the difference in image Quality. Thanks again,

Dan
Click to expand...

how were you testing these? if it was only in the shop then I would say you could only really test the quility of build in that situation,and not sure how you were viewing the shots but if from the back of the camera I would say it would be impossible to judge whether the Tamron or the Canon produced sharper images,the difference would be so small a camera lcd would not be up to the job,I'm not trying to be difficult just saying it sounds like an unfair test so feel it should be pointed out.
 
Certainly I agree with you that the test was exactly as you suggest... Absolutely useless probably.

I hadn't even considered the Tamron until a professional in the shop told me how great it was. He heard me chatting with sales guy and said I couldn't go wrong with it on a 7D.

What I will do, is take some shots out & about, if you guys could give me some feedback on how the other lenses would perform better than it, I really would be ever so grateful. As I say I'm here to learn and my understanding of Sharpness, IQ, Glass, IS, Colour, over / under exposure is negligible and I wouldn't profess it to be anything else!

:)
 
It's simple really, the 17-40 F4 L is a full frame wide angle zoom for landscapes, architecture etc, it is not intended for use on crop bodies full stop. If you want a crop sensor walkabout lens then the 17-55 e-FS is the one. If you want a crop sensor wide zoom, then the e-FS 10-22 is the one.

If you can't see the difference between these lenses and think the 17-40 would make a good crop walkabout lens, then you have a lot to Learn.
 
Lostgear said:
If you can't see the difference between these lenses and think the 17-40 would make a good crop walkabout lens, then you have a lot to Learn.
Click to expand...

And what would you say to the people who use a prime as their walkabout lens? Your reply above comes across as really rude and conceited by the way.

17-40 would make sense if he wants to go ff later perhaps? To the OP went for the 17-55 2.8 IS and love it.
 
Last edited:
Lostgear said:
It's simple really, the 17-40 F4 L is a full frame wide angle zoom for landscapes, architecture etc, it is not intended for use on crop bodies full stop. If you want a crop sensor walkabout lens then the 17-55 e-FS is the one. If you want a crop sensor wide zoom, then the e-FS 10-22 is the one.

If you can't see the difference between these lenses and think the 17-40 would make a good crop walkabout lens, then you have a lot to Learn.
Click to expand...

I can see the difference between the lenses you mention but... if the 17-40 covers the focal range you need why is it a bad choice for a crop body? I've used a 17-40 on both crop and full frame bodies and it produces stunning images on both... I guess I have a lot to learn! Good job that there are photographic experts like you who are kind enough to take the time to show the rest of us where we are going wrong.
 
postcardcv said:
I can see the difference between the lenses you mention but... if the 17-40 covers the focal range you need why is it a bad choice for a crop body? I've used a 17-40 on both crop and full frame bodies and it produces stunning images on both... I guess I have a lot to learn! Good job that there are photographic experts like you who are kind enough to take the time to show the rest of us where we are going wrong.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 has excellent IQ right to the edges, something a crop sensor will never see (the edges of the lens)
To me your paying a lot of money for a lens you are not fully utilising whilst on a crop body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
postcardcv said:
I can see the difference between the lenses you mention but... if the 17-40 covers the focal range you need why is it a bad choice for a crop body? I've used a 17-40 on both crop and full frame bodies and it produces stunning images on both... I guess I have a lot to learn! Good job that there are photographic experts like you who are kind enough to take the time to show the rest of us where we are going wrong.
Click to expand...

glad someone said that,I was thinking the same,if it suits the shots you want then crop or not,it will make a good lens,I place build quality,weather sealing and even resale value up there too,and when it's up against a lens that is known to suffer from dust and another lens that is not known for it's build quality then the 17-40 has a lot going for it,even on a crop,unless I'm missing something,the 17-40 on a crop body will still give the same quality but only affect the focal lenght?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I guess from the other guys post (who seemed pretty arrogant but hey ho) that I'm wrong about the 17-40, I thought on a 1.6 crop it would be along the lines of a 28-70mm which would be great for me. Added to this great build, L series colour and the advantage of it being FF Compatible meant it a viable option.

What am I missing?

Sounds like a reasonable option but if you can explain why it's no good for me then I'd be grateful.

I cannot understand why I would want to ever use f2.8 on landscape and was going to get Sigma 10-20 for that anyhow.
 
Hopefully i'm not one of the ones being accused of being arrogant :shrug:

All i'm trying to say is Canon didn't develop a 17-40 f4 L lens with IQ that is great from centre to edge for it to go on a crop body. If they did it would be an EF-s lens.

Yes it can be used on a crop body and will give a standard walkabout focal length but it's real use is as a ultra wide angle-standard zoom for full frame bodies.

If all EF lenses were good for all crop bodies why did canon bother making EF-s lenses in the first place?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it where me in that position again I would think exactly the same way.
If i was planning on going to FF in the very near future then I would buy the 17-40L if not and you will be sticking with a crop sensor or planning on upgrading to the latest crop sensor at the time then the EFS lens are better suited.
As been said it is designed for FF so a crop sensor will not see all of the outer edge of the lens.

Forget about dust problems for the 17-55 for the minute as said above, it will take one heck of alot of dust to do anything to the IQ and a quick service will sort it out. It all depends on where you are planning on using the lens to get the dust in there in the first place, been using mine around my new building site, hot weather equals alot of dust and have taken probably nearly 700 pics with it and not one spec of dust in there at all.

If you really want the L lens then go get it, does not really matter what people say on here it is you that has to use it and be happy with it. I thnk if I had bought the L lens I would have been no more happy with it that what I am with the 17-55 I have now.

People go on about the build quality, well unless you plan throwing it down everytime you take it off the camera then I think the EFS will be fine, weather proofing, unless you are planning taking loads of pics in the pouring rain it will be fine, wrap it up in a bag, the lens may be weatherproofed on the L lens but your camera wont be so one outways the other there.

The canon EFS is alot of money but go for very little less second hand, so that will tell you something about it. and it does exactly what it was designed to do, take excellent quality pictures on a CROP camera.

spike
 
First lens I bought when using the 20D canon, which was fine for the cropped camera. Still have the lens, from using the 5D to my 5D2, plus the other half uses it on her 40D.

If you are planning for the full frame camera in the future, worth getting :)
 
Its me that is being conceited, this question comes up all the time, and conceited or not, the 17-40 is an UWA zoom for full frame. It does not make any sense on a crop body.

1. It's not wide
2. It's not fast enough for walk about
3. No is
4. Expensive
5. Crop bodies are not weather protected, like the 17-40, therefore waste of feature
6. Crop won't use all the glass, therefore waste of glass, additional weight
7. Better crop alternatives in the e-FS range.

So says Uncle Ken anyway

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm
 
Last edited:
dubcat said:
And what would you say to the people who use a prime as their walkabout lens?
Click to expand...

Speed is a real issue for me on a walkabout, that is why my lens of choice at the moment is an EFs 50 1.4, followed closely by the 10-22 when speed is not an issue.
 
Lostgear said:
1. It's not wide
Click to expand...

But then most of the other lenses being mentioned aren't either. EF-S lenses still use the same focal lengths. Eg 70mm on my EF-S 15-85mm is the same focal length as 70mm on my FF 70-200mm F4L when used on my 7D. Therefore the 17-40mm is the same on the wide end as a 17-55mm EF-S lens. FOV differs when comparing across formats but when talking about a single format the focal lengths are always the same, otherwise it'll be far too confusing.

Lostgear said:
2. It's not fast enough for walk about
Click to expand...

That depends, I use a 15-85mm as a walkabout and that's an f5.6 lens.

Lostgear said:
3. No is
Click to expand...

Not necessarily important on a wide lens, depends on the individual.

Lostgear said:
5. Crop bodies are not weather protected, like the 17-40, therefore waste of feature
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish.

Lostgear said:
6. Crop won't use all the glass, therefore waste of glass, additional weight
Click to expand...

This is true, it does use only the centre of the glass, where it tends to be sharpest and with less distortions and vignetting.

FF glass works perfectly well on crop bodies, out of my 4 lenses 3 of them are FF and I have no problems with any of them.
 
Toggerman said:
But then most of the other lenses being mentioned aren't either. EF-S lenses still use the same focal lengths. Eg 70mm on my EF-S 15-85mm is the same focal length as 70mm on my FF 70-200mm F4L when used on my 7D. Therefore the 17-40mm is the same on the wide end as a 17-55mm EF-S lens. FOV differs when comparing across formats but when talking about a single format the focal lengths are always the same, otherwise it'll be far too confusing.



That depends, I use a 15-85mm as a walkabout and that's an f5.6 lens.



Not necessarily important on a wide lens, depends on the individual.



Absolute rubbish.



This is true, it does use only the centre of the glass, where it tends to be sharpest and with less distortions and vignetting.

FF glass works perfectly well on crop bodies, out of my 4 lenses 3 of them are FF and I have no problems with any of them.
Click to expand...

Yawn, whatever, you clearly know what is best :bang:
 
Damn. I must be naive or foolish then because I use a 17-40 as a walkabout on my 40D and I'm more than happy with it. It's an astoundingly sharp lens that performs extremely well and has the added bonus of being usable on a film or FF body if I decide I want to.

It's not that expensive either in the general scheme of things - especially if you buy S/H.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top