Now I just need to decide whether I want to drop the cash on it now, or go with the 18-55 for now, and get the 17-40 later.

I'll try to help you with that decision if you have the monies avaiable.

Let's see, which do I want to get Do I want to get the Coke bottle bottom or do I want to get the good stuff

I hope my above helped clarify what my feeling are on that choice

Wishing you well as the 17-40 is a darn fine piece of engineered glass and technically speaking, there's nothing wrong with it..

It really comes down to how you will use it. One of the only real mistakes that I made when buying lenses throughout the years was getting a slower wide angle. When I first bought it, I thought I will be at f/8, f/11 or f/16 for most of my shots, so why should I spend the extra money. I was wrong. I was inside frequently, and constantly frustrated with the slower wide angle lens. I sold the lens, and I picked up a 16-35 f/2.8L. I agree that f/2.8 can feel slow at times, but it also has the possibility of making all of the difference in the world, and it frequently does for me. I am sure the 17-40 f/4L is a very nice lens. If I really did shoot just landscapes where I was either on a tripod or had enough light, I would get it. For the way that I shoot, I would be extremely frustrated by the 17-40 f/4L.

Here's a direct comparison:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

You have some other choices on a 20d. The 17-85 IS is a good single-lens solution. The 10-22 EF-S gives you true ultrawide.

17-40 is THE perfect outdoor lens, contrast , color and pretty sharp... Indoor is where it is weak , at least for me, in terms of focusing indoors, it has some issues where soft images are a result. Outdoors all my images are in perfect focus, probably due to the f4 to focus

here is a sample... no editing except for some sharpening.. straight out of ACR

I used the 17-40 F4 for several months and loved it. No focus issues, no problems aside from the normal and expected barreling of a WA lens. And like someone already wrote, if you use it the 17-40 F4 outside during good light, F4 is more then fast enough. And for landscapes, you're probably going to use F8 or smaller anyways.

However it was not so good indoors, even with a flash it was just so-so. For my indoor shots (gyms, concerts, auditoriums, large rooms) I needed one extra stop of light, so I eBayed the 17-40 away and replaced it with the 16-35 F2.8.

As for color rendition, contrast, and sharpness? The 16-35 definitely provides better color and contrast, but as for sharpness, the 17-40 is a tad bit better in this area, but not by much.

The build quality of the 17-40 and 16-35 are excellent, and are equal in this area. And in fact, I believe that no 3rd party lens maker makes anything to compete with the build of a Canon L lens.

I would get the 17-40 and save big money over the 16-35 UNLESS you need the extra stop of light (F4 vs F2.8), and/or the extra mm of wide-angle (not a big diff). At about twice the price of the 17-40 F4, my 16-35 F2.8 provides the performance I would require and is worth it to me. Still, of all you use the WA for is landscapes then the 16-35 would be overkill financially.

You should know however that the 24-70mm L F2.8 provides better noticeable color, contrast, and sharpness then both the 17-40 and 16-35, but of course on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop DSLR the 24-70 may not often be wide enough for most of us.

The Big Bad wrote:
, its kind of funny that people are so strongly opinioned for a given lens, such as Moody for the 17-40 by saying the 16-35 is "useless" for low light and then low and behold, in his equipment profile he owns a 17-40.
Yeah, that's it...you got me

I just said that 1 stop advantage isn't worth $600 extra for most people, definitely not at wide angle.

Now back to Moody, for what he does, even f2.8 may really be useless and he really does need f1.8 or faster. He's completely accurate in that regard to his shooting needs. My needs however are different and I often shoot where f2.8 is just enough and f4 isnt. So for me, that extra stop is all I need to get my shots.
I really don't judge you by your 16-35. In fact, if I was a millionair I would have bought a 16-35

if you really2 need 2.8, then u go to 16-35, other wise 17-40 will be good enough, 16-35 stop down at f/4 quality is the same as 17-40 f/4.

As Ron stated, the 20D requires a lens with f2.8 aperture, to allow the central precision cross sensor to function. It is not about focus speed, nor is it about the amount of light. It is about the off axis angle of light, that permits these sensors to operate. These sensors are 3 times as accurate as the vertical sensors. On the series 1 bodies and the EOS 3, the central precision cross sensor will work at f4.

Considering the extreme importance of sharpness to most photographers, having a lens fast enough to permit these sensors to operates is extremely important. With my extensive experience with lens testing and manual focus bracketing, I can clearly see how important accurate focusing is. A consumer lens manually focused to perfection, can easily exceed in sharpness an L lens that is not perfectly focused. A lens is only as good as its focus.

In my style of photography, I use a tripod about 98% of the time, and I always manually focus. Only on rare action shots and in portraits, do I use autofocus. YMMV.

Keep in mind that you can often pick up a used copy of the 16-35 for just under $1,000. The 17-40 used will run you about $600. Therefore, if you are willing to go used then it is not as big of a difference as the new prices suggest($1350 v $690).

I had both at the same time and agree with the guy at the shop re: the color/contrast. The 16-35 had more pop.

John

Never have a 17-40 but I like my 16-35, lovely lens!

All at its widest end

on D60

BeeMan458 wrote:
Call me nuts, having a 10D but if I had a 20D, I'd be looking at the 10-22 for my 1.6x sensor cropped sensor body coupled with a 24-70 and a 100-400 IS.

I have the 16-35, which I purchased before the 17-40 came out. And with the low noise capability of the 20D, based upon reports, the 17-40/16-35 debate is pretty much a personal wash. Below is a Luminous Landscape shoot out review between the two lenses that you ask about.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml



Actually, the article you referenced compares the 17-35 vs 16-35 as far as I can tell.

Dan

Night use with the 17-40
Dimensions: 3522 x 2348
Capture Time: 2004:12:15 19:42:43
Camera Model: EOS-1D Mark II
Type: CR2 Image
Size: 6.8 MB
ISO speed: 250
Exposure time: 10 sec
Aperture: f 4.5
Focal length: 40 mm

Nice shot, Gunny.

My opinion FWIW is that both lenses offer very good image quality. I've had both, and I like both. If you shoot low-light wide, the 2.8 will give you an extra stop. Whether its worth a few hundred more is up to you.

I always shoot in small aperture when I use wide angle for landscape etc. Since I have my DSLR, I have been more willing to do available indoor candid shots in parties, streetscenes etc. I found that the 2.8 is really useful for that 1 stop extra of light to prevent hand shake.

You will never know what you will be photographing in the future. There aren't that many landscapes to shoot if you live and work in the city. ALthough I love it, but I only do landscape shooting once a fortnight, but I use my 16-35 for everything else that needs the flexibility of a low light zoom.

My strategy is to go for the best lens I can afford and save myself from buying and selling in the future. Although a person up the top is right to say that you won't lose much to sell the f4 in the future as it's popular

Good luck on your decision

i agree. if you go for the best first, you'll save a lot of money (and get the good shots right away instead of later). seems like i've wasted an awful lot!
wayne
here's the 17-40 pushed to the limit (almost)
http://www.pbase.com/wwp/thanksgiving
i picked up a cheap 20-35 2.8L but haven't used it much. don't know if the 16-35 has the same color qualities. very rich. but i think the 17-40 the way to go. otherwise get fast primes.