Got the 17-40 today. Used but in new condition with two hoods, a hoya filter and extra caps. A bargain at half price. Anyway. I mainly will be using it for landscapes and I am wondering if there is any sweet spot. I’ve had a quick look at F9 and shots seem to have come out fairly sharp. Any opinions will be welcome
I always test my new lenses on a tripod at everything from wide open to f16. Takes about a minute and a half to shoot the photos plus another minute and a half to review the results. Those three minutes give me much better information than others' experiences with other lenses.
F8 is very good, but don't be scared of taking it all the way to f16. Choose whatever aperature you need to get the image you want. If you are shooting a 1.6x camera, stay below f16 if possible to reduce defraction effects.
The 17-40L is not regarded as a great wide-open lens. For that you'd get a 16-35mm or another brand of lens.
It works ok at f/16 but diffraction is becoming apparent and can further reduce the clarity of fine details beyond what simply being a wide angle of view will do (by which I mean that a wide angle of view necessarily makes everything look smaller in the image than a longer lens would do). Clarification: diffraction will be more evident on large prints than on small prints. Like DOF it gets worse as print sizes increase. Unless you shoot up close you may never need f/16 for the DOF at very short focal lengths anyway, so better to use f/8.
All ultra wides tend to distort the edge and corner areas though not so much on a crop sensor as on full frame. You'll find most distortions and vignetting can be fixed very easily in software such as DPP or PT Lens. Vignetting can be significant and that can increase noise more than you might expect when you try to correct the vignetting.
It's a pity that you don't have a full frame camera as that makes the 17mm quite spectacular. Even so, with this lens you ought to be able to capture some lovely landscape shots around Albany. I love that area.
I hear a lot of disparagement of the 17-40, especially on the DP forum. I love mine, on crop or FF. It's very sharp, and the color and contrast are as good as any other L.
outlawyer wrote:
I hear a lot of disparagement of the 17-40, especially on the DP forum. I love mine, on crop or FF. It's very sharp, and the color and contrast are as good as any other L.
outlawyer wrote:
I hear a lot of disparagement of the 17-40, especially on the DP forum. I love mine, on crop or FF. It's very sharp, and the color and contrast are as good as any other L.
That's because the 16-35 crowd is stuck on their f/2.8 high horse and angry it cost them $800 more to get nearly indistinguishable image quality and f/2.8 that they rarely use.
The 16-35 owners use f/2.8 every time they use AF and in most modern cameras they get more precise focus as a result. That's in addition to any sharpness benefits (or deficiencies).
Esquire08 wrote:
That's because the 16-35 crowd is stuck on their f/2.8 high horse and angry it cost them $800 more to get nearly indistinguishable image quality and f/2.8 that they rarely use.
17-40 is an astounding lens.
Most photographers I see using the 16-35 are photojournalists and primarily using availible light. I'm going to bet that they would disagree...... I've had both and I wouldn't want to be stuck with my old 17-40 on a job. It's just a faster lens period. And you pay for faster lenses. Apples and oranges I say. And yes the colors and center sharpness of the 16-35 is better but they are both great, just different.
F/2.8 for focus is nice, and I agree the lens is great for photojournalists using it with available light, but for landscapes, as the OP clearly indicates is his main purpose, the 16-35 is overkill.
And really, look at the sample photos on this site shot with the 16-35L mkII f/2.8. Very few shots are actually at f/2.8.
The 16-35 is overkill for anything less than professional use.
I guess I got lucky getting it as new (17-40 F4 L) for half price. It may as well have been brand new, it’s pristine. Anyway it arrived today and I tried to test it out on a few subjects. Quite happy with this lens, like all the Ls I’ve come across, sharp and contrasty and worth what you pay out for them. I love the ability to use 2.8 wide open but I have a 70-200 F2.8L for that. This is a good lens in my opinion, or at least for what I paid for it. It will do me Ok. Still getting used to it but my first shots are not too bad at all
Esquire08 wrote:
The 16-35 is overkill for anything less than professional use.
On full frame I might agree, but on crop I have to disagree.
With a 1.6x crop you get a pretty conservative GP zoom 26 - 56 equivalent.
At 1.3x crop you start talking wide angle with a 21 - 47 equivalent. Still being in the standard range makes f/2.8 very convenient.
I don't regard 26-56/2.8 as useful for professionals only, far from it, it is pretty much a standard zoom, with little reach. The 17-55/2.8 IS being a better choice, although less wide.
rhorta wrote:
On full frame I might agree, but on crop I have to disagree.
With a 1.6x crop you get a pretty conservative GP zoom 26 - 56 equivalent.
At 1.3x crop you start talking wide angle with a 21 - 47 equivalent. Still being in the standard range makes f/2.8 very convenient.
I don't regard 26-56/2.8 as useful for professionals only, far from it, it is pretty much a standard zoom, with little reach. The 17-55/2.8 IS being a better choice, although less wide.
YMMV though
Ruy
Dont think Esquire was talking about the focal lenght but that 2.8 on a wide being overkill for the the extra $800.
Its all relative, if you want the better and can afford it then fine if you cant stretch/justify it then at least canon offers a cheaper alt which is still great.
Choice between the 16-35 and 17-55is on a crop then I would say the 17-55 and the tokina 11-16 2.8 which makes the conversion to FF alot harder to justify.
aladyforty wrote:
I guess I got lucky getting it as new (17-40 F4 L) for half price. It may as well have been brand new, it’s pristine. Anyway it arrived today and I tried to test it out on a few subjects. Quite happy with this lens, like all the Ls I’ve come across, sharp and contrasty and worth what you pay out for them. I love the ability to use 2.8 wide open but I have a 70-200 F2.8L for that. This is a good lens in my opinion, or at least for what I paid for it. It will do me Ok. Still getting used to it but my first shots are not too bad at all
I guess you did. Unfortunately, the top left hand corner of your photos show quite a bit of distortion. Maybe this is OK with you but I'd send it in for sure. Nice shots!
