fighterace wrote:
I had it but sold it after 2 rolls. It's very soft as many users have complaint. The color is not as vivid as my 28-70/2.8L either. A medicore wide angle with a L label.
Very disapointed!
In fairness, looking at your sig, you're used to shooting w/ Zeiss primes. We're very happy with our Honda Civics, but yes your Mercedes is in a whole different class!
The 28-70 is a great lense too, and by all accounts much sharper. But its also twice as expensive and twice as heavy.
Please don't get me wrong. The 17-40/4L is still a good performer given the fact that it's a wide angle. And there's no other choice from Canon except for those expense primes - 24/1.4L, and 35/1.4L. I never used it with a DSLR so my experience with EOS 3 could be quite different since it's full frame.
I haven't used my 17-40 since I got my 24-105. Using FF. Still, I just can't part with it.
I've heard many comments how inferior it is against CZ. The only comparison I have with Zeiss is a 28mm 2.8 I had. Eventhough it was a hair better than my 17-40, there just wasn't enough difference to justify not having the functionallity of the L lens. And..it was just so close. Maybe I've got a really good 17-40. Don't know...Anyway the true test will come shortly as we are remodeling the kitchen and I could be one appliance away of having to sell something. Hmmmm do we really need a whole new oven?
Jim
This is a thread I thought I would never see. A 17-40 get rave reviews.
Heres my take........
The lens is soft. Very soft. It doesnt have a lot of contrast or saturation.
Its my LAST choice for lenses. I would rather use an old mexican coca-cola bottle thats been floting in the ocaen for 4 years. But I guess not everyone has 30k for lenses like I do so I will cut some slack on this thread.
I only use my 17-40 for night star trails. Try a 35L and compare the 2 lenses. I know its not as wide but just compare the image that comes out of both to understand what Im talking about.
xmattkx, do you feel you use your 10-22 EF-S as much (or more) than you used your 17-40 L? Just curious, as I recently chose the 10-22 lens over the 17-40 (on a digital rebel xt).
Oh, and to Blowout, yes indeed, take a chill pill. There are a lot of new people(like myself) who deeply enjoy threads like these.
madmax200 wrote:
But I guess not everyone has 30k for lenses like I do so I will cut some slack on this thread.
Grow up. No one give a rat's about your income.
I love my 17-40. It IS sharp. Would I compare it to a $1200 prime (especially one that isn't even a WA) in terms of sharpness? No. For what it is, I'm totally happy.
Insults? Im talking about a lens and you are spewing out personal insults?
I wasnt posting my income. Wow you seem very very angry. You might want to see someone about that.
Im going to walk away from this one because of your extreme anger level.
By the way all wides look decent center lens and close up. Try posting a 100% shot of some detailed landscape full frame camera and I will show you where it lacks. The lens is soft and lacks contrast/saturation. I own it and its very sad I never use it. Its my opinion and If you dont agree Its not a problem. But you dont need to start yelling personal attacks. Whats the point of that?
I originally bought the 17x40mm as a walk around lens on my 10D,
I have enjoyed this lens, and now use it on my 20D. I have been pleased with the sharpness and contrast of this lens. Some times the colors pop and some times the don't. (can't be operator error). .
Leehman
I'm a new reader. I've got little equipment. In my signature, I even mention that I'm looking for that next lens (down to the 16-35 / 17-40 and 50 1.4). So, from my perspective, these threads are great. I want to know someone shelled out the cash for a given lens, and they're still thrilled with their purchase. Anyone want to write an ode to a 50 1.4 or 16-35? I'll read them, and appreciate them.
madmax200 wrote:
Insults? Im talking about a lens and you are spewing out personal insults?
I wasnt posting my income. Wow you seem very very angry. You might want to see someone about that.
Im going to walk away from this one because of your extreme anger level.
By the way all wides look decent center lens and close up. Try posting a 100% shot of some detailed landscape full frame camera and I will show you where it lacks. The lens is soft and lacks contrast/saturation. I own it and its very sad I never use it. Its my opinion and If you dont agree Its not a problem. But you dont need to start yelling personal attacks. Whats the point of that?...Show more →
Easy there... I never insulted you. I never called you a name, and I never "yelled" (virtually or otherwise). Heck, I never even used an exclamation point. I stated that no one needs, nor wants, to listen to you boast about how much cash flow you can divert to lens purchases. If you can (which, clearly, you can) then congrats! You must be doing very well for yourself, and I wish you all the best.
Don't take what I said so personally. You bragged, I said not to. End of story. I don't hate you, I never insulted you wife/mother/daughter/dog, and I don't even think poorly of you, really. I do apologize if I offended you or came across as overly harsh.
Is there sharper wides than the 17-40L? Of course! Are they zooms under $700? I'm pretty sure that they are not. In prints I have up to 12x19 and 16x24, the shots with the 17-40 are sharp, well saturated, and contrasty. I don't care what pixel peeping reveals, I care about how it looks on paper.
Now, if I was using a 1Ds Mk. II, I think I'd be singing a slightly different tune... I'm well aware that that sensor taxes most every lens to the limit, and the 17-40L probably doesn't make the cut there. And that's fine with me. But that doesn't mean that I should heave it into the nearest body of water, does it? Isn't it possible that it is, indeed, a great lens, even if it's not the best WA/UWA lens to ever grace the face of the earth?
P.S. I'd be ecstatic to test my copy on a FF body...just send your 1DsII my way...I promise I'll send it back!
.