Canon 17-40 F4L lens takeover - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/12/2007 03:01:05 PM · #1

i guess it's a good thing i purchased this lens (be here tomorrow!)...

5 of the 15 images on the front page was taken with it, lol. how's that for coincidence :P

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 15:02:39.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/12/2007 03:13:14 PM · #2

maybe I should start using mine.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

07/12/2007 03:14:13 PM · #3

edit... oops i was wrong skip uses a 24-70

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 15:14:57.

JenniferDavidGA

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/12/2007 03:36:52 PM · #4

Cool, I just got this lens 2 weeks ago. I love it. It has not come off my camera since.

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

07/12/2007 03:42:06 PM · #5

It's my favorite lens. I wouldn't trade it for the world.

scarbrd

Leica M10

07/12/2007 03:46:52 PM · #6

The 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L are the best value in L lenses from Canon. I wish Canon's non-L glass was better.

In my PhotoJ days I shot Nikon. Nikon's "normal" line of lenses were always very good, the Nikkor 105 2.5 was legendary. Canon's non-L still leaves a lot to be desired.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/12/2007 03:47:26 PM · #7

Only comes off my camera for low light situations. Then I bust out my primes.

Once I'm done with the primes, the 17-40 goes back on. I don't think I've touched my 70-200f4 in a year.

07/12/2007 04:00:51 PM · #8

Originally posted by Nullix:

I don't think I've touched my 70-200f4 in a year.

I'll give you fifty bucks...

smurfguy

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2007 04:10:04 PM · #9

I'm looking at lenses now, and regardless of the rave reviews, I simply can't bite on this one, because on paper it doesn't impress me:
- not 2.8
- not IS
- less focal range than my 18-55 kit lens

As much as I admire many of the photographers and shots taken with this lens, from the perspective of buying only one lens above and beyond the kit 18-55, I simply can't justify this one.

And to round out my kit with a good wide lens later on, I think I'd go for the Sigma 12-24 (interestingly the same price as the 17-40... I wonder if there's a comparison between the two somewhere).

In my mind, it's like the 17-40 is the awkward middle child... (like me! =)

07/12/2007 04:14:26 PM · #10

Originally posted by smurfguy:

I'm looking at lenses now, and regardless of the rave reviews, I simply can't bite on this one, because on paper it doesn't impress me:
- not 2.8
- not IS
- less focal range than my 18-55 kit lens

The kit lens is a good lens in the middle apertures, it is soft open and closed.

IS doesn't matter at all on a 17-40mm. With the rule of handheld at 1/focal length you can easily hold it down to 1/15th at the wide end without IS. I feel I have good technique and think I could do handheld on that lens down to about 1/8 when I had it.

2.8 can be an issue. The 16-35 is quite a bit more expensive though... :)

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

07/12/2007 04:14:45 PM · #11

Originally posted by smurfguy:

For me it gets really amazingly wide on a full sensor and it focuses when really close up to an image too so even though I don't get the zoom capabilities if I want a subject to fill the frame I can just get up really close. It's like the best of both worlds. I hate when a lens can't focus within a few feet.

smurfguy

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2007 04:21:32 PM · #12

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

IS doesn't matter at all on a 17-40mm.

I almost edited my post to admit this. But an amateur hobbist like myself wants his next lens to really wow him with some new feature he's never had before. Perhaps not the most logical criteria, but it's a "bang for the buck" thing.

Crystal, I agree - close focal distance is great. The 17-40 goes down to 0.28m (~1 ft), which is the closest of the walk-around lenses I compared.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

07/12/2007 04:42:16 PM · #13

Originally posted by smurfguy:

I'm looking at lenses now, and regardless of the rave reviews, I simply can't bite on this one, because on paper it doesn't impress me:
- not 2.8
- less focal range than my 18-55 kit lens

Exactly the reason I sold it to him. I want faster glass and the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 although not quite the same focal range is a far superior lens IMO

jerowe

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/13/2007 12:07:09 PM · #14

good to know :D

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/13/2007 12:12:22 PM · #15

Originally posted by smurfguy:

The color, sharpness and quality of the 17-40L are much better than the 18-55 kit lens. No it isn't IS, can't change that, but only the 17-55mm 2.8 IS has that in the range (which i hear is fantastic yet a lot more expensive). It's not a 2.8 lens BUT it is a constant aperture lens unlike the 18-55 which is much more desireable.

My friend is about to sell his 12-24mm sigma altho you can't really compare a 12-24 to a 17-40 lens, they're quite different.

07/13/2007 01:01:25 PM · #16

Originally posted by rex:

Exactly the reason I sold it to him. I want faster glass and the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 although not quite the same focal range is a far superior lens IMO

If you are a sharpness hound, I'd strongly disagree.

Comparison of Tamron 28-75 and Canon 17-40 at 35mm f/4.0

Note the bottom two sections of the panel. Huge, huge, huge difference as far as sharpness goes.

smurfguy

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/13/2007 01:39:07 PM · #17

Originally posted by kyebosh:

The color, sharpness and quality of the 17-40L are much better than the 18-55 kit lens.

Indeed, I can't argue that. But those are fairly subjective improvements and not as important (to a technical-minded amateur) as a concrete, objective feature improvement. When I lay my money down, I want IS, or 2.8, or macro, or a different focal range. Although objective, constant aperture isn't a very convincing IMO.

I'm sure it's a very nice lens - it's just not the next one I'll be getting.

PS: Maybe the site Jason cited is smoking crack, or maybe I'm working it wrong, but the 18-55 looks sharper than the 17-40 wide open, while the 17-40 appears to gain the advantage at 35mm.

Thanks for the link, Jason! Neat site!

Message edited by author 2007-07-13 13:46:29.

07/13/2007 02:15:03 PM · #18

Originally posted by smurfguy:

PS: Maybe the site Jason cited is smoking crack, or maybe I'm working it wrong, but the 18-55 looks sharper than the 17-40 wide open, while the 17-40 appears to gain the advantage at 35mm.

Thanks for the link, Jason! Neat site!

Ya, that's interesting. It may be the 18-55 is geared to be sharper at the wide end and the 17-40 is geared for the longer end. I also noticed that the 18-55 is tested on the 30D, so you don't get the results for a FF sensor since the 18-55 can't be put on one.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/14/2007 06:16:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by rex:

Exactly the reason I sold it to him. I want faster glass and the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 although not quite the same focal range is a far superior lens IMO

If you are a sharpness hound, I'd strongly disagree.

Comparison of Tamron 28-75 and Canon 17-40 at 35mm f/4.0

Note the bottom two sections of the panel. Huge, huge, huge difference as far as sharpness goes.

I'd bet to say my copy for the 28-75 is sharper than that canon L. I have a great copy... My friend was not so fortunate and got a dud. This might be the case for that comparison too.