The duck shot shows very well the color signature of the 17-40L -- vivid greens.
It's a good lens that also tends to suffer from sample variation. I know; I have
had three different copies.
Alan321 wrote:
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.
Not regarded as a sharp wide open lens? Well I shoot at f/4 on mine a lot on my 40D and it is very sharp wide open! I think you need to get your info right.
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.
Yes it's a great walkaround/landscape lens. I found it very useful for that :P I've also used it for weddings many times (yes yes f/4, so what? My 40D produces nice enough results at ISO 400-800 to use an f/4 lens, and its always sharp so there's no problem.)
graemeak wrote:
Not regarded as a sharp wide open lens? Well I shoot at f/4 on mine a lot on my 40D and it is very sharp wide open! I think you need to get your info right.
+1
Probably depends on the copy as there is variation from piece to piece. My 2003 17-40 is nice 'n sharp wide open so maybe I lucked out.
aladyforty wrote:
Got the 17-40 today. Used but in new condition with two hoods, a hoya filter and extra caps.
I've been using the 17-40 since 2003 as my "normal" walkaround and landscape lens, on 1.6x bodies up to the 40D. Love it!
However, the "dinner plate" EW-83E hood it comes with is very awkward to use, and doesn't do a good job on a 1.6x body. If it wasn't one of the hoods you got with it, I strongly recommend you get an EW-83J (the hood designed for the 17-55) for use with your 30D. I've been using one since 2006. It does a much better job at shielding the lens from glare/flare, provides more physical protection from bumps/scratches, and when reversed on the lens will actually fit in most bags (unlike the EW-83E). Just remember to keep the EW-83E safe for the time you eventually get a FF body...
Chefdaniel wrote:
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!
The 17-40 has mild barrel distortion at wide settings. Pretty much it's only flaw. Don't get sucked in by comments like "It's faulty - take it back and get another one". They're all like that.
I've had mine for years and love it. F/8-ish is about its best spot.
Dont forget the 17-40 is a parfocal lens and will yield the best results by zooming in to focus and then back out to shoot, or by manual focus. Have fun.
Dont forget the 17-40 is a parfocal lens and will yield the best results by zooming in to focus and then back out to shoot, or by manual focus. Have fun.
I had no idea about this and I've been shooting with mine since 2003 on xt,20d,30d,40d,5d, xt-ir and I would have loved to known this a few years back haha is there a list of the lenses like this canon makes? How did I miss this?
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!
Hmmmm... by distortion I imagine you're talking about a little bit of inward tilt to the line of the window in in the upper left corner the first shot? You surely cant see anything like that in the clouds or grass etc. in the other shots! So, perhaps there is a little barrel distortion, but that's normal for this lens, not something to be "fixed".
17-40 is a great lens. I recently got a 16-35II for the "upgrade" but the diff is so small, I'm thinking of selling th 16-35 for the cash... we'll see.
The 17-40 is a great lens, and by the way, the OP has taken some really fine shots with it!
kays wrote:
I had no idea about this and I've been shooting with mine since 2003 on xt,20d,30d,40d,5d, xt-ir and I would have loved to known this a few years back haha is there a list of the lenses like this canon makes? How did I miss this?
Here is a list. I do not know how current it is since a few new lenses have come out since this list was made:
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 20-35mm f/2.8L
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 70-210mm f/4
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
EF 80-200mm f/2.8L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6L
EF 100-300mm f/5.6
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 always found that my 17-40 was sharp at f/4 and remarkably so at 5.6 onwards. I've always been confused by the idea this lens isn't anything other than a sharp zoom. Then again, the brilliant 24-70L get a similar forum-fear.
I always found that my 17-40 was sharp at f/4 and remarkably so at 5.6 onwards. I've always been confused by the idea this lens isn't anything other than a sharp zoom.
My experience with the 17-40 is that it is center sharp at all apertures --- on a crop frame body, it would be nice and sharp everywhere. However, on full frame wide open, the corners are considerably less sharp. Stopping down to f8 or so fixes this. Others' experience may vary; some people may get lucky and have full-frame corner-to-corner sharp 17-40s.
Michael, I agree with everything you say, I'm just using your comments as a springboard:
mpmendenhall wrote:
... Stopping down to f8 or so fixes this. Others' experience may vary; some people may get lucky and have full-frame corner-to-corner sharp 17-40s.
People who expect their lenses to be sharp from edge to edge at wide-open aperture should shell out for a Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (I'm saving); otherwise, there's many reasons that this usually doesn't happen, including field curvature and (of course), unrealistic user expectations.
As we used to say: f/8 and be there.
(Of course, that's a landscaper's point of view, it's not much use for shooting sports at night .)
mpmendenhall wrote:
My experience with the 17-40 is that it is center sharp at all apertures --- on a crop frame body, it would be nice and sharp everywhere. However, on full frame wide open, the corners are considerably less sharp. Stopping down to f8 or so fixes this. Others' experience may vary; some people may get lucky and have full-frame corner-to-corner sharp 17-40s.
This is pretty much the finding of the competent reviews of this lens, that, and that the 16-35 is better in the corners and slightly less sharp then the the 17-40 in the center. The 17-40 has some barrel distortion, as has been stated, but that can be easily corrected in PS. This lens excels on cropped bodies.
The lens is plenty sharp at f4, I do most of my shooting there. (Wedding work), personally think it's better than my 24-70L for distortion from 24-35mm. I've had two copies of this lens as the first was stolen mid wedding, both as good as each other.
I shot this scene with loads of fine detail at 17mm, f8, 11, 16 and 22 (I was sitting on the ground and couldn't be bothered getting up!). f8 was noticeably the sharpest but 11 and 16 were also good just gradually less sharp. f22 was typical of that aperture on a FF sensor diffraction wise.
