Would I be right in thinking...

Messages
537
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
that the 17-40m F4L would be pretty close wide angle wise on my 5Dmk2 as my 10-22 is on the 50D? (I'm guessing in reality the 10-22 = 16-35 on my 1.6 crop 50D?)

If so, any comments on optical quality etc.. ? I'd like (although not essential) to be able to use all my lenses on the 5D2, but not at the cost of quality etc... :)

Dave.
 
Hi Dave,

The 17-40 is only marginally narrower than the 10-22 would have been. I've stuck a few shots up in the landscape section that were taken with the 17-40 if you want to go and have a look.

I've got absolutely no complaints about the quality or performance of this lens and if you use DPP for the basic RAW edits, it'll correct the barrel distortion for you as well. I wouldn't have any hesitation in suggesting you burn an even bigger hole in your credit card for one! :D

Take care,
Si
 
Thanks Simon - I'll go check it out, I'd sell the 10-22 though, so shouldn't be out of pocket with this one! :D

Dave.
 
No worries Dave... You should be able to pick up a secondhand 17-40 for around the same price as you'd sell your 10-22 for. In fact, the 10-22 is slightly more expensive if you were to buy new! :)

I forgot to mention that the filter size on the 17-40 is also 77mm so any filters you were using on the 10-22 will fit straight on.

Si
 
The 17-40mm is a cracker.
Probably my best purchase to date, price to quality wise. Basically is as sharp as hell for a quite low cost lens.

17mm on the 5D would be MEGA wide!

4497288441_035e69ecce_o.jpg


That was shot @ 17mm on my 1D MKII (1.3 crop).
 
The reason it's low cost is because it's p*ss slow. Same as Canon's 24-105 - fantastic range, even better cost... p*ss slow aperture.

That ain't stopping me from buying one though!

I've always thought of Canon's 10-22 as the EF-S equivalent of the 17-40 (or 16-35), it even has L quality glass in it and a very L look to it (particularly the front end). I just don't get why Canon won't please us croppers and release L series lenses in EF-S format.
 
The reason it's low cost is because it's p*ss slow. Same as Canon's 24-105 - fantastic range, even better cost... p*ss slow aperture

That's maybe more of an issue with the 24-105L.

f/4 matters less when you can hand hold it fairly safely at the wide end at 1/15 sec. ;)

If you're shooting landscapes with it, f/8 or f/11 is the same whether you're using a 17-40 f/4L or a 16-35 f/2.8L.

I just don't get why Canon won't please us croppers and release L series lenses in EF-S format.

I suspect the reason is because there is no EF-S-mount 1-series body.

Canon market their 'L' series as 'professional' lenses and the 1-series as 'professional' bodies. If they were to market a 'professional' EF-S 'L' lens there would be no corresponding 'professional' body upon which to fit it.

If they were then to suggest that a professional user mount his professional lens on a consumer 7D for professional work, then it undermines their marketing claims for the 1-series to be camera bodies designed for professionals.
 
Wouldn't say f/4 is 'p*ss slow' - depends on what you're wanting from the lens.

To the OP, used a 17-40mm for years and if there was one lens I could have taken with me to Nikon, it would have been that lens. Great build quality and superb optics. Probably one second in my lost of favourites to my Tamron 17-50mm, which is ace :)
 
Oh, and I find the 17-40 f/4L very useful on my 5D classic.

It got a bit more use when I had it as a mid-range zoom on my old 300D around five years ago, but it's a handy lens to have on full frame when I need to go that wide, and quite versatile.

You see the best of it on a crop body. The corners on the 5D aren't amazing at f/4, particularly at the far ends of the zoom, but they're passable for a zoom lens if you don't look too closely. It improves a bit by f/8, but I reckon my 35mm f/2 delivers sharper corners at that aperture.
 
Cheers guys, I might try and see if anyone wants to swap on here before getting round to selling the 10-22 :)

Dave.
 
Back
Top