Canon 17-40mm f4 L - any good?

markta

markta

Messages
3,036
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Have a forthcoming August bike ride in the high Pyrenees for charity. My Sigma 10-20mm is too wide really for mountain photos, so am looking at the 17-40mm.

I know the person behind the camera makes the shot, but what is everyone's views on this lens? Presumably it handles CAs well, but what are they like for sharpness and colour rendition?

I'd be very grateful to see any example shots, so I can see the potential of this piece of glass.

Thanks :D
 
I have had one for about 6 months now. Sharpness is good, I dont think it is quite as sharp as my 70-200 F4, but then I havent seen anything as sharp as that :p It is a lovely lens, I find it ideal for landscape photography, the focal range seems just about spot on to cover most things. Colour rendition seems good to me, matches my 70-200 exactly. To be honest I havent had a single problem or niggle with it at all :)

EDIT - http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom_holmes/tags/1740f4l/ - shots I have taken with mine
 
I love mine!! its nice and sharp and the colour is great..

MG_8449_1.jpg


Derwent.jpg


Tarn.jpg


As you can see i use it for Landscapes.. Its not the BEST L in the range.. but it does the biz..
 
The 17-40 is a lovely lens, I got mine to replace the kit lens and it's never off my camera (except when I'm shooting macro, oh, or motorsport :LOL:).

This shot has been pimped "slightly"



oops, this has been tweaked a little too :thinking:



woohoo, a virgin shot :D



Excellent lens though, highly recommended!

Cheers,

Neil.
 
Sharpness is on par with your 10-20 if you own a good one.
Colour is slighly better than your sigma but nothing dramatic.

C/A is controlled well.
Dont expect to much and you'll be fine.
 
dcash29 said:
Sharpness is on par with your 10-20 if you own a good one.
Colour is slighly better than your sigma but nothing dramatic.

C/A is controlled well.
Dont expect to much and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Mine is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay sharper than my 10-20 and my 10-20 isnt an overly bad one.
 
Mine is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay sharper than my 10-20 and my 10-20 isnt an overly bad one.
Click to expand...

Then the 10-20 my 17-40 was up against must have been exceptional although i very rarely shoot below f8
F4 might be a different matter?

By the way my 17-40 has been checked at Canon

Maybe i expected to much
 
Some fab results. Thanks for posting the examples. Looks like a very good quality lens (in the right hands of course!:coat:).

Lowest I've seen is £390 plus £10 postage. Anyone get theirs cheaper?

Cheers :ty:
 
markta said:
My Sigma 10-20mm is too wide really for mountain photos, so am looking at the 17-40mm.
Click to expand...
I'm so glad to hear that. I've often thought I'm a lone voice in the wilderness, because it seems that 99% of the people on TP think the 10-20 is the best landscape lens there is!

You simply won't do better than the 17-40L for a landscape lens, unless you want to blow double the money on the 16-36L Mk II. End of.
 
I've found my 17-40 to be a brill lens.
Gives me lovely sharp images, EF mount so it will work with full frame and has stunningly vibrant colours that made my Tamron 28-75 look so flat that I had to sell it.
Lastly, it's weather sealed, so was my lens of choice at Niagara last year.
 
I think it is a great lens, perfect to replace the kit lens. Although it is quite heavy if you're going to be lugging it around on your bike...
 
StewartR said:
I'm so glad to hear that. I've often thought I'm a lone voice in the wilderness, because it seems that 99% of the people on TP think the 10-20 is the best landscape lens there is!

You simply won't do better than the 17-40L for a landscape lens, unless you want to blow double the money on the 16-36L Mk II. End of.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. The 10-22 is excellent for taking shots of inside a building or of a skyscraper from just the other side of the road, but the landscape shots never had any impact, because it looked like I was miles away.

I like the 10-22 though, it's a great lens and handy for static car photography, but not the complete answer for landscapes

Ideally I'd like to see a 10-40mm lens but I doubt that would happen too soon :LOL:
 
StewartR said:
I'm so glad to hear that. I've often thought I'm a lone voice in the wilderness, because it seems that 99% of the people on TP think the 10-20 is the best landscape lens there is!

You simply won't do better than the 17-40L for a landscape lens, unless you want to blow double the money on the 16-36L Mk II. End of.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 16-35 II is wayyyyyyy out of my price range at the moment. General consensus is that it's a bit sharper than the 17-40, but looking at the example shots it's not bad.

I agree, the 10-20mm will be too wide to take shots of a specific mountain, but I'll use it to take shots of three or four in the distance.

Had even more cause to get it, as yesterday a printing company offered to create a really nice card album of the shots I take, free of charge as I'll be handing it over to the charity I'm doing it for; a local children's hospice. So compositionally, it'll be impossible to take the shots I want with just the 10-20mm. I wanna take the best shots possible, which'll mean the 17-40mm.

C'mon fairies of finance, please help! :LOL:
 
Very true, but this isn't a one off shoot. I hope to be going to different parts of the country and overseas if funds permit and do some more over forthcoming years and selling them with proceeds going to same cause.

If I can't get the money together in time for this trip, then I'll almost certainly end up renting, but in the long term, buying the lens outright will pay for itself
 
just got 17-40 from Kerso, not had lot of chances to use but seems as you would expect from L glass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top