Those of you that shoot 17-40L

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
end

Weiyang Liu
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

For those of you that shoot 17-40L on a FF sensor, how many of you have shot with the 20mm f/2.8 ? I have the 20mm and it's been very sharp and I'm very satisfied with it except that sometimes, I find that it would be more useful to have the more versatile zoom. On 16-9.net, the reviewer says the 17-40 is sharper than the 20mm but on the-digital-picture.com, it seems the 20mm prime is sharper on the ISO12233 comparisons. What have your experiences been for these 2 lenses? I'll be mainly using the lens as a landscape lens as I hike around. The other thing about the 20mm is that it flares a lot. Does the 17-40 flare less?

It seems the 17-40 is a much more popular lens than the 20mm. Why is that? Does the extra 3mm make that much of a difference in the wide end? Is the versatility that worth it? Is the 20mm just an extremely underrated lens?

Oct 12, 2008 at 06:17 AM

Ovi Ivoda
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

"For those of you that shoot 17-40L on a FF sensor, how many of you have shot with the 20mm f/2.8 ?"

Nobody on whole world because EF 17-40L is f/4 lens...

Oct 12, 2008 at 06:54 AM

Anden
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

Ovi Ivoda wrote:
"For those of you that shoot 17-40L on a FF sensor, how many of you have shot with the 20mm f/2.8 ?"

Nobody on whole world because EF 17-40L is f/4 lens...

?

Oct 12, 2008 at 06:59 AM

Ovi Ivoda
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

The original Weiyang's question is ...EF 20/2.8 USM?
If yes, I'm sorry.

EF 20/2.8 USM is mechanically very good, and optically not so bad but has very high light fall off. For landscape photos (e.g.) the 17-40L is better.

Oct 12, 2008 at 07:16 AM

Ovi Ivoda
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

"Does the 17-40 flare less?"

Yes, and the 17-40L is really THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION from all four ultrawideangle L zooms (oldest 17-35L, old 16-35L, new 16-35L II and f/4 17-40L).

Oct 12, 2008 at 07:21 AM

HenkvdT
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

Hi,

I've used the 20mm but found it to be poor. I think the 20mm is one of the worst Canon lenses I have ever used. Even @ f4 it still wasn't sharp and lots of CA, so praise yourself lucky if yours is sharp. I switched to the 17-40 and this performs a lot better plus gives you the flexibility of a w/a zoom.

I think it's too bad Canon made a new version of the 24 and would rather have had them make a fast 18L or 20L.

Cheers

Oct 12, 2008 at 10:11 AM

azurekenzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

Ovi Ivoda wrote:
"Does the 17-40 flare less?"

Yes, and the 17-40L is really THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION from all four ultrawideangle L zooms (oldest 17-35L, old 16-35L, new 16-35L II and f/4 17-40L).

Plz show me how the 17-40 is THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION in compare with the 16-35 MII

Oct 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Esquire08
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

azurekenzo wrote:
Ovi Ivoda wrote:
"Does the 17-40 flare less?"

Yes, and the 17-40L is really THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION from all four ultrawideangle L zooms (oldest 17-35L, old 16-35L, new 16-35L II and f/4 17-40L).

Plz show me how the 17-40 is THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION in compare with the 16-35 MII

?

It is a well-accepted fact that the 17-40 controls flare better than the 16-35.

Oct 12, 2008 at 10:08 PM

treebeard
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #9 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

HenkvdT wrote:
Hi,

I've used the 20mm but found it to be poor. I think the 20mm is one of the worst Canon lenses I have ever used. Even @ f4 it still wasn't sharp and lots of CA, so praise yourself lucky if yours is sharp. I switched to the 17-40 and this performs a lot better plus gives you the flexibility of a w/a zoom.

I think it's too bad Canon made a new version of the 24 and would rather have had them make a fast 18L or 20L.

Cheers

Ummm....could you afford an 18L or a 20L? I am afraid the price tag would put me out of the running for picking one up!

Oct 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM

treebeard
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

Esquire08 wrote:
azurekenzo wrote:
Ovi Ivoda wrote:
"Does the 17-40 flare less?"

Yes, and the 17-40L is really THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION from all four ultrawideangle L zooms (oldest 17-35L, old 16-35L, new 16-35L II and f/4 17-40L).

Plz show me how the 17-40 is THE BEST FLARE SOLUTION in compare with the 16-35 MII

?

It is a well-accepted fact that the 17-40 controls flare better than the 16-35.

I agree. I have had both and my 17-40L is much better at controlling flare. I know because I have been out in the bright sun shooting fall landscapes and flare control is excellent!

Oct 12, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Cliftonyte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Those of you that shoot 17-40L

24-70mm blows the 17-40 away when comparing lens flare. I love the 17-40mm but one thing I find troubling, lens flare is to much for me. Again I am not a fan of lens flare, I find it distracting in "most" images. I have no opinion on the 20mm but I do have both 17-40 and 24-70.

Oct 16, 2008 at 01:10 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload end