gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #13 · I want to get an upgrade to my 17-40L lens, any thoughts? | |
snegron7 wrote:
Of the lenses mentioned so far, I currently own the EF 17-40mm f4.0L, and the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. I had the old EF 16-35mm f4.0L but sold it some time ago.
In my limited experience, I have the following to say about these lenses:
1. Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L. I have one of the only two copies ever produced by Canon that is tack sharp and focuses very fast adapted to my R6II. (I believe the only other sharp copy is owned by Ken Rockwell). Based entirely on the opinions of people here on FM, this lens is one of the worst lenses ever to come out of a manufacturing facility. It was a miracle that anyone ever captured any images with it. Me and Ken Rockwell were lucky to find the only two amazingly sharp, well built copies in existence. My suggestion? Don't bother buying it. You too might end up with a superb copy, but you will be branded a heretic if you dare praise it in any way.
2. Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM. I purchased it a few months ago. It is sharp, but takes some getting used to. You have to turn the zoom ring to use the lens (it retracts past 16mm for "storage mode"). While I mostly shoot wide angle (16mm and 24mm), I wish it would go to 40mm like my old, "obsolete" EF 17-40mm f4.0L. Also, it feels plasticky, but is not as lightweight as one would imagine it to be.
3. Canon EF 16-35mm f4.0L. Had it. Sold it. Never cared much for it. It was too long, too plasticky, and was not as tack sharp as other lenses I've owned.
On another note, sometimes lens variations are a real thing. I have owned several "legendary" lenses that ended up being total disappointments, while I've also owned lenses despised by many (like the Canon EF 17-40mm f4.0L) that turned out to be absolute gems. This goes for lenses I've purchased for my other camera systems as well (Sony FE mount, Nikon DSLR, Olympus & Panasonic m4/3). ...Show more →
Your good karma with the 17-40 was apparently cancelled by your bad karma with the 16-35 f/4 — thus ensuring, I suppose, balance in the universe.
The 17-40 was actually better than the common wisdom suggested. Because it was far less expensive and only f/4, it was a tempting target for those who only believed that the much more expensive 16-35 f/2.8 could possibly be good. I did not own the latter lens, but I recall checking the results of a lot of the various lens reviews and tests and noting that while it scored higher in the corners a bit, it scored less sharp in the center of the frame.
The 1i7-40 had soft corners wide open. (Though quite a few reviewers seemed to not realize that at 17mm some of the stuff at the lower edges was not at the same distance from the lens and stuff in the center of the frame, and instead of recognizing his as, at least in part, a DOF issue they said "soft corners!")
Overall, my copy was pretty good. Maybe there were three of us?
My experience with the 16-35mm f/4 (which I still own and use) has been pretty much the opposite of yours. While I don't use it a lot, when I do it is an excellent performer. It is sharper than either the 16-35mm f/2.8 lenses or the 17-40mm f/4, and it has good corner performance. (There were some centering issues with the first copies when the lease was released, but Canon dealt with those.) If by "plasticky" you are referring to the physical construction of the lens, I'm confused, since it is built like pretty much all L lenses. I agree that it is not a short lens.
|
