Canon EF 17-40mm F4 L V Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
At the moment I'm using the EF-S 17-85mm (on a 40D) as my main landscape lens. I'm wondering if I would see any increase in quality with a 17-40 F4L lens.

Obviously I'd loose length but I'm more interested in how they compare at shorter focal lengths and IS isn't really an issue as I shoot nearly all my landscapes on a tripod.

Hopefully somebody will have made the switch from the 17-85 to the 17-40 and be able to tell me their thoughts.

Cheers

Phil
 
17-40 will blitz it, but it's such a waste to use that lens on a crop camera - you are throwing away more than half of the (full frame) image it forms.

Think about the 17-55 2.8, or 15-85 - they will blitz it too. So will the 10-22, which makes a nice overlapping partner for landscape.
 
Keep seeing posts of how the 17-40 is wasted on a crop camera. Don't understand why if it suits the purpose it was bought for. I use one in mine regularly to bridge the gap between two lenses and get some cracking results thanks.
 
HoppyUK said:
17-40 will blitz it, but it's such a waste to use that lens on a crop camera - you are throwing away more than half of the (full frame) image it forms.

Think about the 17-55 2.8, or 15-85 - they will blitz it too. So will the 10-22, which makes a nice overlapping partner for landscape.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Isn't the loss of image area true of any lens on a cropped camera or do you mean it's a shame to not get the full benefit of it ?

BertRoot said:
Keep seeing posts of how the 17-40 is wasted on a crop camera. Don't understand why if it suits the purpose it was bought for. I use one in mine regularly to bridge the gap between two lenses and get some cracking results thanks.
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
dinners said:
Thanks for that. Isn't the loss of image area true of any lens on a cropped camera or do you mean it's a shame to not get the full benefit of it ?
Click to expand...

I have the 17-40 F4L and both a 5D Mark II and 500D and the lens is a completely different animal depending on which camera I use.

On the 500D it's a very good upgrade to the kit lens.
On the 5DMkII it's a stunningly good lens, which gives all that lovely UWA distortion action going on at the wide end - which you can use for artistic effect...

The 'crop' area loses all the fun bit that makes an UWA an UWA...

Depending on what you're actually wanting to use the lens for, the Canon EF-S 10-22 gets really good reviews...
 
I already have the Sigma 10-20 which I use when I want a ultra wide angle on my 40D

I was wanting something for landscapes that starts where the 10-20 ends but would / could then become my wide lens if I decide to upgrade to FF.
 
I have both the 17-85 and the 17-40 and find the 17-40 on my 40D a nice walk around lens and VERY capable!

It outperforms the 17-85 by ridiculous ammounts in my opinion!!
 
ozyboyross said:
I have both the 17-85 and the 17-40 and find the 17-40 on my 40D a nice walk around lens and VERY capable!

It outperforms the 17-85 by ridiculous ammounts in my opinion!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Ross.

Can I ask - do you get the same 'view' at 17mm ?

Also - do you have / would you be willing to take - two shots to compare ?

Thanks

Phil
 
dinners said:
Thanks for that Ross.

Can I ask - do you get the same 'view' at 17mm ?

Also - do you have / would you be willing to take - two shots to compare ?

Thanks

Phil
Click to expand...

no probs, i wouldnt say ive noticed a difference in the field of view between the two at 17, but have never took both out or used both in the same circumstances so perhaps there is ....

As for images I will have a look through my library tonight to see what i can find, if nothing, i will see what i can do at home (dont finish work till 7-8pm) so daylight shots are out unfortunately, unless another kind soul already has the images?

Cheers

Ross
 
I'm afraid that I'm another one who doesn't see the point of the 17-40mm f4 on a crop camera. I've tried one on mine (x1.6 crop) and instead I went for a 17-50mm f2.8 as it gave a longer reach, a faster aperture and I read on line reviews that say it's optically better than the 17-40mm.

The only advantages I can see for the 17-40 (and I admit that they are big advantages) are that it's full frame compatible and that it's a weather sealed L although having said that my 17-50mm f2.8 has been out in the rain and snow and has not failed.
 
dinners said:
I was wanting something for landscapes that starts where the 10-20 ends but would / could then become my wide lens if I decide to upgrade to FF.
Click to expand...

Hmm, usually I'd agree with everyone else, and say not to bother with a 17-40 on crop, however in this case it might be something worth thinking about.

I'd have a proper think about whether you'll be going full frame or not. If you definitely are, don't need a faster aperture or IS, then it might save money in the long run (rather than buying a lens for cropped sensors, then selling it later on at a loss).

However, if you think you might not be upgrading, or you'll be keeping a crop sensor camera as a second body, giver serious considerations to the Tamron 17-50, or Canon 17-55 IS if you're feeling flush!
 
BertRoot said:
Keep seeing posts of how the 17-40 is wasted on a crop camera. Don't understand why if it suits the purpose it was bought for. I use one in mine regularly to bridge the gap between two lenses and get some cracking results thanks.
Click to expand...

I think this has been covered in other posts now. Of course it will work fine on a crop camera, but there are major benefits to be had from a lens that has been specifically designed to cover crop.

The best comparison is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 which, for very roughly similar money, is at least as sharp some say slighly better, has much more range, runs to a full stop brighter (a feature that usually doubles the cost, eg 16-35L 2.8) and has IS as well. Frankly, if it didn't have that magic red ring on it, I don't think the 17-40L would get half the attention that it does from crop format users - the L bit has more do to with build quality that anything else, lots of other lenses are optically just as good.

On a full frame camera, it is a fantastic lens, and as it happens I'm selling all my crop gear right now and getting a 17-40. However, for those folks who maybe buy a 17-40L with a view to going full frame in the future, when you do it changes from a modest kind of walkabout lens to a spectacular super-wide like the EF-S 10-22 and you then need to buy a 24-105L or 24-70L to replace the walkabout range.

For those people shooting on a crop body and buying lenses with an eye to full frame as well, I think they are not making the most of what the smaller format has to offer and it is better to buy EF-S lenses and then sell them on when the time comes (as I am doing) rather than have a compromised outfit. But that's just a point of view.

BTW, the optical benefits of the crop format quickly diminish over about 50-60mm, which is why Canon doesn't make longer EF-S lenses.

Edit: if you buy crop format lenses with half an idea that you might sell them in the future, buy Canon. Stuff like the 17-55 2.8 and 10-22 will hold their value much better than the equivalent Sigma or Tamron.
 
I think some posters have been eating something strange this weekend. They suggest that the 17-40mm doesn't work well on a cropped sensor then suggest a 17-50mm or 17-55mm. Ok there's an f-stop difference between these lenses, but if your taking landscapes, you won't be wide open anyway. OK 17mm on a cropped sensor will frame like a 27mm lens, but you do gain advantages with the crop over FF, if there are any inperfections at the edges at 17mm crop will remove them because you lose a proportion of the image. All 3 lenses will work well.

If someone mentioned the 24-105mm on a cropped sensor, then I would agree, that lens is definitely for a FF body.

Although you lose the extreme 17mm, landscapes tends to be in the 24-35mm range anyway. If you want to use the lens as a walkabout as well as have the landscape capability, then perhaps the 17-50mm or 17-55mm would be a better suggestion, but the 17-40mm is just as capable for landscapes as either of the other 2 lenses.
 
i think its more coming to the fact that there is a load of extra glass on the 17-40 as it covers a full frame sensor where as on the 17-55/17-50 there is only the glass there for a cropped sensor so even though it is a stop faster they are about the same size. that said however i am going to get the 17-40 soon as i want the weather sealing for caving stuff/walking in the rain stuff.

alastair
 
"I think some posters have been eating something strange this weekend."

I think the point is that few people use a lens for just one thing although anyone who thinks that landscape is purely about DoF or even sharpness beyond f4 is perhaps missing some of creative opportunities offered by faster lenses.

And, there's always the question of what is optically best and although I'm not going to bother Googling and pasting links I'm sure I've read on line reviews in which the better 17-50mm f2.8's beat the 17-40mm f4 on the format on which they can both be used.
 
I beleive the comparision in question is the difference between 17-85 and 17-40L on a 40d, and not the capabilties of the 17-40l on say a full frame 5d body. I am sure, as you would expect for the price, most lenses would perform much better, on say a full frame as to a 1.6 crop. I am sure the 17-40l will again give beter results on say a 1ds mk111, than a 5d. I am sure there are many, including myself that would be interested in the perfomance of the 17-40 on a 1.6 crop, as I do not beleive Canon have aimed this lens at full frame users only. Any examples would be most welcome.
 
Go for the 17-40F4.

Why?
It'll be a nice walkaround lens.
It's high build quality.
The image quality is superb.
It's full-frame and 35mm film compatible!!! (If you upgrade or fancy shooting some slides.)
If you dont like it you will sell it on and loose very little/no money (esp if you buy s/h)

The only downside being the cost and slightly heavier weight - although theoretically it'll probably cost less once sold and the images you sell using the lens.

BTW IIRC you can buy the 17-55mm lens hood. Will help with flare and make you look cool.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this

I will be buying the 17-40L this year. It will go on both of my crop bodies and still be a nice walkabout lens.

However, it will be a great lens on the film body i bought on here yesterday.

I also decided a while back that L quality cannot be beat IMO - so intend getting full range coverage in L lenses - just 40-100 to go.

Then new FF body
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top