Canon 17-40 F4L

Milamber

Milamber

Messages
207
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of getting one of these as a general walkabout lens, does anyone have any thoughts or example photos to share.

Will be used on a 40D and mainly landscapes but the occasional person.
 
I was well still am in the same boat, looking for a lens in that range, BUT this lens is more suited to full frame camera's, from what the guys say on here the canon 17-55 is the one to go for.

spike
 
I use one of these as a walkabout on my 40D and I couldn't be happier - it's a lovely lens. It works perfectly well on crop sensors ;)
 
Hi Milamber :) Where have you been?

17-40L is a wonderful lens - on full frame. It's simply wasted on a cropper, you can't use half of the image it projects, unless the L build quality is all important.

You can get at least as good optical quality, plus much more range, lower f/number, IS etc with an EF-S lens - 17-55 f/2.8 is most people's pick (I used to have one, really good) or the newer 15-85 is tempting for the range, but you lose the 2.8 bit.
 
HoppyUK said:
Hi Milamber :) Where have you been?

17-40L is a wonderful lens - on full frame. It's simply wasted on a cropper, you can't use half of the image it projects, unless the L build quality is all important.

You can get at least as good optical quality, plus much more range, lower f/number, IS etc with an EF-S lens - 17-55 f/2.8 is most people's pick (I used to have one, really good) or the newer 15-85 is tempting for the range, but you lose the 2.8 bit.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich,

Been busy and haven't really had much of an opportunity to get out much.

To be honest seen this at a good price and have 'L' envy!

White or a red stripe and it has to be good doesn't it LOL
 
HoppyUK said:
Hi Milamber :) Where have you been?

17-40L is a wonderful lens - on full frame. It's simply wasted on a cropper, you can't use half of the image it projects, unless the L build quality is all important.

You can get at least as good optical quality, plus much more range, lower f/number, IS etc with an EF-S lens - 17-55 f/2.8 is most people's pick (I used to have one, really good) or the newer 15-85 is tempting for the range, but you lose the 2.8 bit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this just isn't true. It's an excellent lens on a crop sensor and the price is excellent. It lacks IS but I've never found that to be an issue nor is the maximum f4 aperture. It's hardly wasted and you get to use the sharpest part of the lens as well - the centre.

I wouldn't be without mine :D
 
Islander said:
Sorry, but this just isn't true. It's an excellent lens on a crop sensor and the price is excellent. It lacks IS but I've never found that to be an issue nor is the maximum f4 aperture. It's hardly wasted and you get to use the sharpest part of the lens as well - the centre.

I wouldn't be without mine :D
Click to expand...

What isn't true? That you can't use more than half of the image it produces, and that the focal length range is feeble? You get more with the kit zoom.

Compared to the EF-S options, that's a lot to trade for a red ring. Which doesn't mean it won't take great images, just that there are better ways of spending that kind of money, and much to be gained.

Why else would Canon (and every other manufacturer) go to the trouble of making lenses specifically for crop format cameras? The design advantages of the smaller format are substantial with shorter focal length lenses.
 
So by that reckoning, every EF lens is wasted on a crop sensor. I disagree. For the price, and you can pick a good one up for around £400, the 17-40 is a superb lens that performs well on a camera with a crop sensor. The focal length is well suited for landscape and portrait work. Yes, some of the EF-S lenses are excellent too but there's nothing wrong with us the 17-40. It's hardly wasted.
 
Islander said:
So by that reckoning, every EF lens is wasted on a crop sensor. I disagree. For the price, and you can pick a good one up for around £400, the 17-40 is a superb lens that performs well on a camera with a crop sensor. The focal length is well suited for landscape and portrait work. Yes, some of the EF-S lenses are excellent too but there's nothing wrong with us the 17-40. It's hardly wasted.
Click to expand...

No, not every EF lens - only the shorter focal length ones are wasted on croppers. The optical benefits of only having to cover the smaller sensor run out quite quickly at longer focal lengths.

Compare to the EF-S 17-55 2.8. It manages to deliver much longer range, runs a full stop lower, and has IS. If anything, it's fractionally sharper too.

If you want f/2.8, which is something most folks are prepared to pay a high premium for, with EF that's the 16-35L which has even less range, and still doesn't have IS. Not to mention the price - you're paying a hefty premium for something you can't actually use.

Apart from the red ring (and the build quality that goes with it) the 17-40L offers a lot less than EF-S alternatives in terms of usable performance. I'd rather have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 if it's a question of cost. Feel free to differ.
 
As for the 17-40 the only risk you run with it as a single one and only walk about lens is barreling and convergence you'll get on closer subjects, which can be expected at this range. For me the 24-105f4 or 24-70f2.8 is better single walk about lens. In saying that the 24-105 and 17-40 are the only lenses I took in a recent holiday to Italy, used them both but probably the 24-105 2/3rds of the time and 17-40 1/3rd of the time. If you want to do any wider shots or landscape the 17-40 is a cracker - I've only been on a cropped body with it.

HoppyUK said:
Why else would Canon (and every other manufacturer) go to the trouble of making lenses specifically for crop format cameras? The design advantages of the smaller format are substantial with shorter focal length lenses.
Click to expand...

I can think of two reasons -
1. It keeps armatures from have to work out a mathematical equation to know what the zoom length lens they're about to buy or is on their camera
2. Consumer DSLRs like the Rebel series were meant to be lighter and smaller to be more consumer friendly for walking around with (usability).

Good glass is good glass and will lend it's self to IQ more so than low end glass. There is no such thing as EF-S L That I am aware of, just say'n;).
 
I've had my 17-40 for around 8 years. It's an outstanding lens and is used for a high proportion of my work, on crop and FF. Should I choose to sell it (highly unlikely), it'd probably fetch roughly what I paid for it.

If what you are after is a fast focusing, reliable, accurate, robust lens that doesn't cost a fortune and you can put up with the f/4 aspect, there are few better choices on the market.
 
17-55 2.8 IS is so much more bang for your buck in this price range. Only reason to go with 17-40 is if you are planning to move to full frame or you need the weather sealing IMHO. None of this means that you would be unhappy with a 17-40. I just think you would find the ef-s lenses in this range more useful!
 
I've heard it isn't the best lens on crop and only shows its true colours on FF.
I believe the 17-55 could be your best option.
 
Well - as a walkabout lens for my 7D, I've a choice of the 17-40 f4 L or the 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lenses.

Originally, I bought the 15-85 as a kitted lens, with the intention of giving it a try, and if I didn't like it, chopping it in against a 24-105mm L. I had the 17-40L as my wide angle lens for my (old school) full frame body (EOS-3 35mm body!)

I find that if I'm out for an afternoon's shooting, with just a single lens, and in controlled conditions (either inside, or the rare "blue-sky summer day") then I fit the 15-85mm - it's a really nice kit lens, and with a little extra on the wide end which is nice on landscapey stuff. If however, I'm out with the full camera bag - or if the weather's a bit more mixed (typical hill/mountain weather), I'll probably have the 17-40L fitted. Okay, so a crop sensor may not use all the glass, but it does mean there's not a sniff of vignetting at the wide end. It's a lovely lens, and the build quality is in a different league to the 15-85mm. On the other hand, the 15-85mm is such a useful combination, I ended up keeping it, and sprang for a 24-105L to fill the gap to the 70-200L :shrug:
 
So, give up on the red ring for the moment is (nearly) everyone's suggestion.

I'll keep an eye out and see what I can pick up.

Thanks for the comments everyone.
 
How about the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC paired with the either the canon or sigma 10-20 range wide angles. Best of both worlds.
 
hsuffyan said:
How about the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC paired with the either the canon or sigma 10-20 range wide angles. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I'd second that - I sold a 17-40 (used on a 1d mk2) because I was underwhelmed by the IQ - I intended to get a 16-35 but got sidetracked by Tokina's new 16-28. I bought a Tammy 17-50 as a stopgap whilst the Tokina got itself sorted out but still have the Tamron - it's sharper and faster than the 17-40 and I've forgotten about the Canon and Tokina. Great lens especially if you can find a good used one - I paid £160 off POTN
 
I had the 17-40 on my 40D for landscapes. Wasn't quite what I wanted in the end, never the less, great lens.
 
Go for a 10/12mm wide angle zoom if you're using a cropped sensor.. best thing I did..
 
I will have to agree
go for the 10-20 I used the sigma on my 40d and loved it
but the 17-40 is a fantastic lens on my 5DMkII

other said some thing about IS
you do not need it that much if you rely on it to much you will never learn how to take a photograph
 
Have the 17-40L now I have moved on to full frame, but on the 40D I was impressed with the Canon 10-22.
 
DucDuc said:
I can think of two reasons -
1. It keeps armatures from have to work out a mathematical equation to know what the zoom length lens they're about to buy or is on their camera
2. Consumer DSLRs like the Rebel series were meant to be lighter and smaller to be more consumer friendly for walking around with (usability).

Good glass is good glass and will lend it's self to IQ more so than low end glass. There is no such thing as EF-S L That I am aware of, just say'n;).
Click to expand...


Point 1 is irrelevant - the crop factor still has to be considered - 17mm EF-S is the same as 17mm EF

There is no EF-S L and Canon said there never will be - this doesn't stop the glass being as good quality as an L lens - look at the 17-55mm, that's L quality but without the label, the 10-22mm is very well thought of too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top