Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

[ok20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

http://www.hdrsoft.com/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml


I hope i did help even a little.

Enjoy :)


Oh, yes, you did. The third link is good. Thank you very much.

It answered my question: Photoshop has a dedicated function for HDR.

Quote from the third link:
"Before looking at how these files are handled by Photoshop's Merge to HDR function[...]".

[Tareq]

Oh, yes, you did. The third link is good. Thank you very much.

It answered my question: Photoshop has a dedicated function for HDR.

Quote from the third link:
"Before looking at how these files are handled by Photoshop's Merge to HDR function[...]".

Oh great, i am so happy for you and i am ready always if you need as i can if i know something to help with, i need help as well as you so enjoy and have fun.

[JCheungPhoto]

any of these shot with a 1.6x crop camera?

[bluebomberx]

any of these shot with a 1.6x crop camera?

Canon 20D - EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, 17mm - 1/250 at f/4, ISO 800
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2285/2243797506_81e91d0c4a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2243797506/)

[VSV]

Great colors- I like his toenails!

[JCheungPhoto]

nice picture, seems wide and sharp enough wide open for me, definite buy

[jacobsen1]

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4741.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4748.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4755.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4757.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4758.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4760.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4765.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/nsop-shoot-day-02-10-2008/IMG_4768.jpg

[DEMO]

awsome pictures Ben.. interesting location.

[ok20]

Independently from your photography skills, which show great exposure, these pictures are a visual assault. I always found graffitis to be an eye-sore.

[Elton Balch]

Here's one from a couple of years ago with my 17-40 and 350XT. I love this lens for walk around on a crop camera.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a193/EltonBalch/plaza0002.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

Here's one from a couple of years ago with my 17-40 and 350XT. I love this lens for walk around on a crop camera.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a193/EltonBalch/plaza0002.jpg

woah, nice

[jacobsen1]

Independently from your photography skills, which show great exposure, these pictures are a visual assault. I always found graffitis to be an eye-sore.

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but thanks?
:lol:
Yeah, graffiti is an interesting "art". I love to see what's possible with such crude tools, but I hate to see it on property where it doesn't belong. IMHO where this is is fine because it's an old burned out carriage house that should be torn down. Because the state can't afford to the kids go tag it, but it's still a disaster and ugly w/o and paint...

YMMV
it's still a crime
Ben

[k9trainer]

Wow, these pics are really nice,
I just couldn't take it any longer, and just purchased a new 17-40L to go on my 5D. Thought Id find a good deal used but for just $100. more I was able to purchase new ($619).
I cant wait to post a few pics of my own.:p

[bubbawillums]

5D + 17-40 @17mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/2254748095_f9dbbfcfc4.jpg

and another with an ND grad
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/2183291636_10220e5bd7_b.jpg

[grandadraymond]

My 2
http://lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Picture_002_resize~1.jpg

http://lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Picture_025_resize~1.jpg

[Nick Pro]

Wow great shots guys! I cant figure out what to get, the 70-200 f4 or this. I dont have walk around lens for the 1D

[Tareq]

Wow great shots guys! I cant figure out what to get, the 70-200 f4 or this. I dont have walk around lens for the 1D

This question is the worse question i ask sometimes because i know i want everything but i can't afford things, we can't tell you which to get because both lenses are great, i am sure if you go to 70-200 f4 thread you will ask the same question, there they will tell you get 70-200 and here they will tell you get 17-40 and many of them have both and more.

[Fyerfytr]

Well Since it's been bitterly cold, I will have to wait a bit on the landscape shots.
Just a quick sharpness test with the 17-40L. Just got it yesterday.
Wish I would have checked the ISO I had it set for 1600.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Not as sharp as my 70-200mm, but still really nice:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7127/aon215nf5.jpg

But slightly less distortion at 40mm than the 70-200mm at 70mm:
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9236/aqua2153vt2.jpg

[bluebomberx]

An old oldie from my 10D and JPEG days.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2213194139_c5bff5288c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7840761@N08/2213194139)

[elysium]

Decided, this has got to be my next lens. Will keep a look out for one second hand. DEFO something I need. :)

Would anyone say that they have had any gripe with this lens? I currently own a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 as a walkabout which is great but sadly the widest lens I have right now is the 18-55 kit lens which suffers from CA a bit too much for my liking. Also for night club photography, I think I would benefit more since I only own one body right now so switching between lenses in a club is a chore.

[Player9]

An old oldie from my 10D and JPEG days.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2086/2213194139_c5bff5288c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7840761@N08/2213194139)


Nice

[Tsmith]

A few more to share:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/74862820/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/85071787/original.jpg

[John_TX]

Hi Toney, those are absolutely stunning!
If you don't mind, was the 2nd picture also taken at Yosemite?

[Tsmith]

Hi Toney, those are absolutely stunning!
If you don't mind, was the 2nd picture also taken at Yosemite?

Thanks John _ the second was taken about 1/3 of the way up the Iceberg Lake Trail in Glacier National Park.

[thatkatmat]

Here's one from the Pike Place Market, in Seattle, with my 5D at 400 ISO
24mm, wide open,no flash, no PP (except WB) and a 100% crop (below), this is a great lens....much better than my 16-35
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2276662516_268f1cc685_b.jpg
100% crop
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/2276669018_d32c52a9be_b.jpg

[franklinn]

went out to lion's gate tonight. a foggy night, and the only vantage that was accessible to me from stanley park was this ledge looking over the bridge.

I don't have a tripod (....YET!), so the camera rested on the ledge.

I'm not particularly happy with the shot, but I'd like to share it nonetheless!!

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2783/img2044topostot2.jpg

[Mike55]

Wild river:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/falls-1.jpg

[John_TX]

Wild river:


Great shot! What body was that taken with?

[stathunter]

I just rec'd my lens today---I waited for it to become warm enough to hold--since it is freezing here in Michigan. Here is my first shot with it attached to my 5D.........it is my kitchen......not a great shot but I love how the lens picks up wide and clear.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g303/stathunter/IMG_5221MOD.jpg

[dontshootmek]

hey Mike55, did you use a filter on that shot?

[Mike55]

Great shot! What body was that taken with?


Thx! It was taken with a Rebel XT, 1/125th.

[Mike55]

hey Mike55, did you use a filter on that shot?


I believe I used a Hoya Pro 1 CP on that one. You can pay around $140 here for one, or get one for $70 at hvstar.com in Hong Kong.

[Sydor25]

From this past weekend:

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Austin_2008-068_10x20.jpg


http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Austin_Capitol-562.jpg


http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Austin_Skyline--460.jpg

[franklinn]

beauuuuuuuutiful shots James!

[Fyerfytr]

Yes those are very nice James. Can't wait to get outside and get some real shots with my new 17-40l.

[maryooshek]

Windsor Park (UK):

[Steezy]

Some shot of my box.

Sharp as hail!

http://i30.tinypic.com/wmblgg.jpg

100%

http://i28.tinypic.com/2my83yp.jpg

[maryooshek]

Singapore:
http://i26.tinypic.com/30vbp6o.jpg
---------------
Canon 40D - 24-105mm L 4.0 IS USM - 17-40 f4 L - 50mm 1.8

[maryooshek]

Bird Park, Singapore:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2jaxn6c.jpg
----------------------
Canon 40D - 24-105mm L 4.0 IS USM - 17-40 f4 L - 50mm 1.8

[Bill Pham]

taken with 1D classis while i was in the rocking boat. my brother-in-law with a paddle fish.

Bill

[thievery]

this is a superb landscape lens that I know I will never part with it.

a few Danish landscapes:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/1919317897_d095f1575a.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/1892043381_4a8dada4f1.jpg

[Perry Ge]

Bird Park, Singapore:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2jaxn6c.jpg
----------------------
Canon 40D - 24-105mm L 4.0 IS USM - 17-40 f4 L - 50mm 1.8

That must be the first bird shot I've ever seen from this lens :lol: (ducks don't count).

taken with 1D classis while i was in the rocking boat. my brother-in-law with a paddle fish.

Bill

:shock: That's a big-ass fish.

[killerbab]

i am seeing some great shots in here with the 5d. Anyone have any pics at 17 that look ultra wide with distortion?

I am told it compares to the crop cameras with a 10-22 on it, but i am not seeing that in this thread. When i had the xti and the 10, i would distort pictures like crazy.

Anyone else having these kind of results?

[jacobsen1]

it all depends on the angle. Keep the sensor level, no distortion. Tilt up or down, major distortion.

[bildeb0rg]

Handy in a crowd too.

[nburwell]

Seven images stitched together, but all using the 17-40.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/nburwell/cbp_pano1_20x10_web.jpg

[jdaly]

Seven images stitched together, but all using the 17-40.



Why seven images? Or was that too wide a shot to get in?

[i_am_hydrogen]

One of my last shots taken with my now sold 17-40.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/3029/lookingupaonoe9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[jdaly]

cool shot, hydro!

[John_TX]

One of my last shots taken with my now sold 17-40.

If I might ask, why did you sell it?

[i_am_hydrogen]

Thanks, jdaly. I like your signature by the way.

John_TX - I sold it to help fund the purchase of a 24-70, which is a better fit for me focal-length-wise.

[rslv]

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/853/003ok6.jpg

[silvex]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1210/1369830851_757c1390e5_b.jpg

(sorry these are so big...):o



Insane shot!!! How long of an exposure? Is this the fwy from 91 to irvine ?

[silvex]

I got mine few days ago I like it a lot.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1038/1409062568_4515a2f499_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1401/1408155035_c47b4cfc0f_o.jpg

And one pano 3 pictures at 17mm stitched with PanoramaFactory
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1327/1408211597_9a7fee3111_o.jpg

Regards Gisli
:shock: :shock: Stuning shots!!! :shock: :shock:

[Dorman]

This gallery is still one of my favorites to visit. I've had my 17-40 for a few years now and it has created many (i.e. most of!) my favorite images. It has been relegated to backup duty as I've been carrying the Tamron 17-50 and now the Canon 17-55 IS for paying gigs where I need the speed. Even though the other lenses are more versatile I simply can't get rid of the stripped down simplicity that is the 17-40 - the IQ never disappoints. In fact, looking at my desk here at work, almost all of the pictures I printed out here are from the 17-40...

I'm thinking I should trade my 17-55 for the 24-70 so that I have no excuse not to use the 17-40...

[pheelfresh]

Some really great shots in this thread indeed. Some of which had a say when I had to decide for a new wide-angle for the 5D.

Here's a few of my shots with this excellent lens:

http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/molen-fotono.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/leftout-artlimited.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/paradisebay-part01-small.jpg

All are shot at various locations in Norway.

[Tareq]

Some really great shots in this thread indeed. Some of which had a say when I had to decide for a new wide-angle for the 5D.

Here's a few of my shots with this excellent lens:

http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/molen-fotono.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/leftout-artlimited.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/paradisebay-part01-small.jpg

All are shot at various locations in Norway.

hi Pheel, your shots are always spectacular and beautiful, making me to think to go there.
Your gallery on dA is speechless, keep up your works.

[rslv]

Stunning work Pheelfresh!

Another one from me:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5122/004nw8.jpg

[silvex]

Some really great shots in this thread indeed. Some of which had a say when I had to decide for a new wide-angle for the 5D.

Here's a few of my shots with this excellent lens:

http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/molen-fotono.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/leftout-artlimited.jpg
http://www.naessetphotography.com/images/other/paradisebay-part01-small.jpg

All are shot at various locations in Norway.

Excellent use of rule of thirds! Just spectacular!

[tomhide]

Some really great shots in this thread indeed. Some of which had a say when I had to decide for a new wide-angle for the 5D.
All are shot at various locations in Norway.

Absolutely wonderful!! I Love it!

[piggy]

Here is my contribution:

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd139/jc011/IMG_1816_web.jpg

Taken with my 400D in Las Vegas.

[20ls01]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/2326369460_576af59a2c_b.jpg

[youming]

taken by my MKIIN

[gary88]

Here's one I took over the weekend.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/2342774308_5dddcf3d18_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyhebding/2342774308/)

Rebel XTi
f/5.6
40mm
1/200"
ISO400

[G35Driver]

http://luis452.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p115478386.jpg

http://luis452.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p513082275.jpg

[grimey121uk]

http://luis452.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p115478386.jpg

http://luis452.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p513082275.jpg

Nice shots
although if i was in that position with my camera my 100-400 would come out for all girls in bikinis

[Mike55]

Here's a couple of RAW screen captures with zero post processing except for a touch of smart sharpen using a Kenko Pro 1 Digital CP. We've seen alot of beautiful "souped up" 17-40 images, but I thought I would post what they look like out of the camera via RAW.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/mountain2.jpg





http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/hiddenrivercopy.jpg

Wicked natural landscape lens. The colors and contrast are as they should be right out of the gate.

Bummer about the skies. The nasty fire season last year pretty much killed good sky shots. Blowout was inevitable even with ND.
Another one with zero post processing, not even smart sharpen and wide open at F4. Look at those greens pop! If you do nature landscapes, this is a real tough lens to beat. I'll never get rid of it.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/forestgreen.jpg

[Al!ck]

Another for the party

1/320th @ f/5.6 17mm

http://alickcotterill.co.uk/bigphotos/4.jpg

[Tsmith]

I'll add one of myself to the mix. I love the results with this lens.

Canon EOS 30D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
1/60s f/8.0 at 17.0mm iso100

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/87127862/original.jpg

[Mike55]

Great, great park.

Here's another RAW file straight out of camera about a couple hundred miles south of where Tsmith took that previous photo. Those are the actual colors with no PP:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/meadow.jpg

[i_am_hydrogen]

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9408/trump223pm0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[youming]

Early morning 7:30 at Central Station

[Spaced_K]

Ive had this lens for a week or so now and havent had a chance to get out nad about with it. I love the results from it displayed here. Really good shots, gotta get out .....

[crazycaucazian86]

im tied between this lens or the 17-55 is...the price difference is significant but i need an overall walk around lens...it seems like this lens is mostly used for landscaping which worries me when considering this when i need a lens to do events such as skateboarding contests...product shots and overall walking around stuff...

[1downfall]

im tied between this lens or the 17-55 is...the price difference is significant but i need an overall walk around lens...it seems like this lens is mostly used for landscaping which worries me when considering this when i need a lens to do events such as skateboarding contests...product shots and overall walking around stuff...
I too am wallowing in the same boat. (except not for skateboarding!!) I have a bit more time to decide.....but it's becoming more and more difficult.

[fishingjts]

I picked up my 17-40L back in January... Decided to test it out at the Detroit Auto Show... Was amazed at the pictures when i pulled them up on the PC when I got home... The photographer who did the photoshoot of my Mustang (for Modified Mustang) recommended the 17-40L... Great recommendation and glad i took his advice!

Here's a couple that I thought really shined... The Dodge ZEO concept...

http://www.v6john.com/Main/Other/2008_NAIAS/zeo_1_frame.jpg


http://www.v6john.com/Main/Other/2008_NAIAS/zeo_2_frame.jpg


http://www.v6john.com/Main/Other/2008_NAIAS/zeo_3_frame.jpg

Can't wait for car show season to start here in Michigan!!! LOL!

[Dorman]

I too am wallowing in the same boat. (except not for skateboarding!!) I have a bit more time to decide.....but it's becoming more and more difficult.

If you want the best of both worlds (f/2.8) without the price tag pick up the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 - it's a great lens, it is plastic but has a great build/feel, everything just feels nice and tight. It won't break the bank, it has a good range, very nice saturation and contrast, and is very sharp.

I've owned the 17-55 F/2.8 IS, IS was a nice feature and the range was great, it had faster and sometimes more accurate autofocus than the tamron. I found the images to be flat, lacking in saturation and contrast, and no sharper than the tamron. I couldn't get on with the sloppy build/feel of the 17-55 lens, and I didn't like the fear of the dust issues and IS unit failures. I preferred the images from the Tamron 17-50 but much enjoyed the USM focusing and FTM capabilities of the 17-55.

Now, what lens have I had for several year and which one remains in my bag? The 17-40L. This lens has given me most of my favorite shots. It's well built, feels great, is very very sharp, has very rich colors and contrast, has fast and accurate autofocus, and basically has all the features in a lens I could want other than F/2.8. The Tamron gave my beloved 17-40 a run for it's money when I needed a lens that has F/2.8, but it has been upgraded to a 2.8 zoom in another range (24-70) and I'm back to loving my 17-40.

So, I'd get the Tamron 17-50 if you feel you NEED F/2.8, otherwise don't hesitate to get the Canon 17-40.

[Dorman]

Here's a few from me to add to the archives. This time I'll post some landscapes, next time I'll post some images that show what other kind of work can be done with it.

Cheers.

1.
http://i.pbase.com/o6/52/461152/1/83316203.amErVqNe.TheCove4.jpg

2.
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/52/461152/1/65920575.oE91pIkj._MG_564901.jpg

3.
http://i.pbase.com/o6/52/461152/1/80244953.hYnCt2SB._MG_8002.jpg

4.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/52/461152/1/66307761.H5NBXizf._MG_730001.jpg

5.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/52/461152/1/65920527.mbMhlKQF._MG_561301.jpg

6.
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/52/461152/1/64849325.rVZo7yNo._MG_519501Orange.jpg

[Tsmith]

Wow Brad _ you have an outstanding eye for your photography.

Here's a quick get it while you can portrait of my 7 year old my Golden Retriever. Had to coax her to sit still with the promise of doggy treats.

Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
1/2500s f/4.0 at 40.0mm iso200

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/94895655/original.jpg

[Perry Ge]

http://luis452.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p115478386.jpg


Don't you just LOVE how point light sources look when you stop this lens down? Here's one of mine with an example of that sweet effect:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2299195843_af026b2448_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/perryge/2299195843/)

[galahad]

Here's one from Bournemouth with the 20D.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1418/1216317228_6e68f47ed4_o.jpg

[Sydor25]

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Catalina_2008-362_10x20.jpg

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Catalina_2008-206.jpg

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Catalina_2008-196_10x20.jpg

[scraggles]

This thread reminded me that I once had this lens. So, I sold my 70-200mm f/2.8 that was getting absolutely no use, and rebought a 17-40 again today for 550$ brand new at a local camera show!

[Dorman]

Wow Brad _ you have an outstanding eye for your photography.

Here's a quick get it while you can portrait of my 7 year old my Golden Retriever. Had to coax her to sit still with the promise of doggy treats.

Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
1/2500s f/4.0 at 40.0mm iso200



Thanks Toney! You also have a great eye - I've long enjoyed your hiking shots with the 17-40 and also your other lenses! .......Now to investigate why my images aren't showing up, I bet it's pbase acting up as usual!

[Dorman]

Here's an image of my sister-in-law's golden retriever, he is about two years old in this photo taken last winter with the 17-40.

http://i.pbase.com/o6/52/461152/1/80304018.Ua0GtrsO._MG_7779.jpg

[fi20100]

A shot from today's engagement photo shoot:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2375145056_3c94dc8993_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaos2/2375145056/)

[Dorman]

Nice light on this one Stefan.

[galahad]

Here's an image of my sister-in-law's golden retriever, he is about two years old in this photo taken last winter with the 17-40.

http://i.pbase.com/o6/52/461152/1/80304018.Ua0GtrsO._MG_7779.jpg

No show on this one Dorman. :)

[Dorman]

No show on this one Dorman. :)

It's there for me in my original post and your reply, I know pbase craps out with the embedded images at times, usually a refresh of the page will solve that. I'll have to start doing them as attachments or from my other site.

Cheers.

[Mike55]

This one was taken during one of the worst fire seasons ever in the Northern Rockies. There was a 30,000 acre fire a few miles from the image, and the skies were unrepairable from the heat/haze.



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/mudpond.jpg

[1downfall]

If you want the best of both worlds (f/2.8) without the price tag pick up the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 - it's a great lens, it is plastic but has a great build/feel, everything just feels nice and tight. It won't break the bank, it has a good range, very nice saturation and contrast, and is very sharp.

I've owned the 17-55 F/2.8 IS, IS was a nice feature and the range was great, it had faster and sometimes more accurate autofocus than the tamron. I found the images to be flat, lacking in saturation and contrast, and no sharper than the tamron. I couldn't get on with the sloppy build/feel of the 17-55 lens, and I didn't like the fear of the dust issues and IS unit failures. I preferred the images from the Tamron 17-50 but much enjoyed the USM focusing and FTM capabilities of the 17-55.

Now, what lens have I had for several year and which one remains in my bag? The 17-40L. This lens has given me most of my favorite shots. It's well built, feels great, is very very sharp, has very rich colors and contrast, has fast and accurate autofocus, and basically has all the features in a lens I could want other than F/2.8. The Tamron gave my beloved 17-40 a run for it's money when I needed a lens that has F/2.8, but it has been upgraded to a 2.8 zoom in another range (24-70) and I'm back to loving my 17-40.

So, I'd get the Tamron 17-50 if you feel you NEED F/2.8, otherwise don't hesitate to get the Canon 17-40.
Dorman,
ty for your reasoning and explanation on this issue. This < along w/my other thoughts (!!!) has pretty much led me to my...or soon to be 17-40 L. and a new flash of course. this was the sort of read I was in quest of.

[Dorman]

Dorman,
ty for your reasoning and explanation on this issue. This < along w/my other thoughts (!!!) has pretty much led me to my...or soon to be 17-40 L. and a new flash of course. this was the sort of read I was in quest of.

No problem, that's as objective as I can get. The 17-40 was my first upgrade from the kit lens around 3 years ago, and I've had it and used it ever since. As you can see I've tried to replace it twice now with the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55, and I've come right back around full circle to the 17-40. For MY uses a fast F/2.8 lens in a longer length (tamron 28-75, canon 24-70) is the better choice for my fast zoom, and the 17-40 is the perfect wide angle for MY uses. It's not perfect (range, aperture), but I'm sure you will love it.

[Mike55]

Another one from the wilderness. At this point we had to be evacuated due to a 100,000 acre forest fire:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/bvalley.jpg

[weegee]

The 17-40 gets used most. It never left my 5d body on this three day trip to Zion and Page.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8da20b3127cceb7474eee251a00000025100AYtWjRm5cs2 Ig

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8da20b3127cceb7474962e43d00000025100AYtWjRm5cs2 Ig

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8da20b3127cceb7474c32a4f700000026100AYtWjRm5cs2 Ig

[MinhThien]

Any one in here own a 17-55 f2.8 is and 17-40? if you do please tell me which one you like better and why thanks!:)

[jacobsen1]

Any one in here own a 17-55 f2.8 is and 17-40? if you do please tell me which one you like better and why thanks!:)

I don't but if you're buying for a 1.6 body (if not the 17-55 won't work on anything but) get the 17-55. It's designed for that body, is f/2.8 and has IS. It's a killer lens. The 17-40 is designed to be a lighter UWA zoom for FF. Yes it works on a 1.6, but it's not what it's designed to do. Unless you need weather sealing, go for the IS and f/2.8.

[Dorman]

Any one in here own a 17-55 f2.8 is and 17-40? if you do please tell me which one you like better and why thanks!:)

I have owned both at the same time, and have also owned the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8. I agree with Jacobsen that for a 1.6 crop camera it is a deadly lens, at least on paper. I preferred the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 over the Canon 17-55. I found the Tamron to have better color, contrast, and build. It was equally as sharp as the 17-55. Now, the 17-55 had better (faster, quiter, and more accurate) autofocus than the Tamron, but I found the IQ to be underwhelming on my personal copy. The build/feel was the breaker for me, it's such a crappy feeling lens. On another positive note it has IS if you feel a need/want for it in that range.

What lens of the 3 do I still have? The 17-40. Fantastic build/feel, very very sharp, great color/contrast, great focusing. Is it the least versatile of the 3? Yes.

If you need the versatility of more range and F/2.8 then go for either the tamron or canon, they are both very good lenses. That being said, my 17-40 is perfect for my uses, and it has been my go-to lens for 3 years. I've tried to replace it twice and I've come back to it both times.

Just MHO.

[scraggles]

Dorman, I sold my first 17-40, and here I am with another.

[John_TX]

I too have been flipping back & forth between the 17-40L & 17-55 IS and I just keep coming back to the 17-40L.

I just can't get past the build quality of the 17-55 IS. I like to shoot outdoors and just don't want to constantly worry about dust getting into the 17-55 (although it doesn't affect IQ, a lens that costs $900+, regardless of whether its EF, EF-S, L or non-L, should NOT have these issues).
A $0.10 seal & air-port filter (like on hard drives) would solve all these issues.

Kind of reminds me of NASA & the o-ring that brought down the Challenger...

[versedmb]

The 17-55 IS leaves something to be desired in terms of build quality, but optically its as good (or better) than any lens I own.

[BrantG]

I'm struggling on whether to pick up the 17-40 over the 16-35 for my MkIII. I'd rather not spend the $1300, but never know if I may need the 2.8 for indoor shots.

[John_TX]

I'm struggling on whether to pick up the 17-40 over the 16-35 for my MkIII. I'd rather not spend the $1300, but never know if I may need the 2.8 for indoor shots.

This should be an easy choice for you since you've already got the 17-55 IS! How often do you shoot at 2.8 with that lens?

[Xisthreweyes]

I've had this lens for about a year now and I love it. I use it with a cropped camera and can't wait to get my full frame. Here are a few shots I've taken over the last year.

[Xisthreweyes]

A few more.

[jacobsen1]

Ryan, this one is amazing:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=259333&stc=1&d=1207207407

love the clouds with the color in the water. Very powerful. Where is it?

[scraggles]

^I agree... Looks surreal

[BrantG]

This should be an easy choice for you since you've already got the 17-55 IS! How often do you shoot at 2.8 with that lens?

Quite a bit. However I just get get over the sticker shock. :confused:

[John_TX]

Quite a bit. However I just get get over the sticker shock. :confused:

Why not just sell the 17-55 IS and put the 16-35 II in it's place? You already have the 24-70 to fill the rest of the gap. Plus you'd get rid of your last piece of glass that doesn't work on your Mk III.

[BrantG]

Why not just sell the 17-55 IS and put the 16-35 II in it's place? You already have the 24-70 to fill the rest of the gap. Plus you'd get rid of your last piece of glass that doesn't work on your Mk III.

I tried to sell it on here, but didn't have any luck.

[tomhide]

Recently I've been very interested in 6x17 panoramic camera and have been simulating the field of view by cropping 17mm wide shots taken with my 5D.

Anyways here's one that I've been playing with recently which can go into this archive :)
For anyone interested, I think this FOV would be equivelent to 80mm lens on 6x17 panoramic camera which shoots on 120 roll film.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7162/mg5527800tqz3.jpg

[yabbie]

Nice, thought that looked like Sydney, then saw your sig. Bronte?

[Nick Pro]

Anyone have a 17-40 they would like to sell to me??? Looking to spend about 500...
Thanks!!!
Nick

[tomhide]

Nice, thought that looked like Sydney, then saw your sig. Bronte?

Cheers :) Yeah I've shot at Bronte few times before but this was at Coralloy. The northern beaches in Sydney. :)

[scraggles]

Can anyone post some 100% crops from the 17-40, completely unprocessed as sharp as you've shot?

I just got my 17-40 Sunday, and while some shots seem sharp, I switched from JPEG to Raw and I'm disgusted with the results.

I actually want to throw my camera out of the window. Sans lenses. I'm so sick of this XT! Even though when I do upgrade, I'll end up keeping the XT for some unknown reason.

So anyway, can I see some unprocessed/unsharpened shots that you guys think look great clarity-wise so I can see if I'm just being too picky?

[tomhide]

I don't have any samples handy but I've done a quick search in this thread with keyword "100%" and found the following result: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=390917

I thought this post in particular was a good example of what you're looking for: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4946481&postcount=476

[Mike55]

Can anyone post some 100% crops from the 17-40, completely unprocessed as sharp as you've shot?

I just got my 17-40 Sunday, and while some shots seem sharp, I switched from JPEG to Raw and I'm disgusted with the results.

I actually want to throw my camera out of the window. Sans lenses. I'm so sick of this XT! Even though when I do upgrade, I'll end up keeping the XT for some unknown reason.

So anyway, can I see some unprocessed/unsharpened shots that you guys think look great clarity-wise so I can see if I'm just being too picky?


Throw away your XT? Why? There are many people who would love to have that camera.

100% crop unsharpened or PP'ed in any way RAW files from 17-40 @ 26mm:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/horse17-40.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/raw100.jpg'


Keep in mind that these images are probably not representative of the clarity of the 17-40L. On my last trip to the mountains, there was serious dust and smoke from massive forest fires in every direction. The drought also caused things to kind of all look washed out or the same color(see a couple of my river/forest images above). The skies were also blown out so badly from the heat/smoke/dust that not even a ND filter was effective. In the normal size horse picture, if you look at the top of the pictue, you can see the valley completely covered in smoke :( I'd like to get my 17-40 back out there in much better conditions. That said, it does an awesome job and I will never get rid of it. It absolutely nails the color of a scene and has this nasty micro contrast that works great for natural landscapes.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/camp17-40.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/17-402100.jpg

[scraggles]

Throw away your XT? Why? There are many people who would love to have that camera.

100% crop unsharpened or PP'ed in any way from 17-40 @ 26mm:


and you are happy with this clarity? If so, then I'm just being over critical I guess cause this is about what I'm getting.

[jacobsen1]

Recently I've been very interested in 6x17 panoramic camera and have been simulating the field of view by cropping 17mm wide shots taken with my 5D.


ever considered panos with shifting? The TS-Es do it well and there's a whole world out there for MF lenses on shifting eos adapters... It's less expensive since you already own a body...

here's an example with my 45mm TS-E:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/beach-panos/Untitled_Panorama2.jpg

[John_TX]

ever considered panos with shifting? The TS-Es do it well and there's a whole world out there for MF lenses on shifting eos adapters... It's less expensive since you already own a body...

here's an example with my 45mm TS-E:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/beach-panos/Untitled_Panorama2.jpg


I'm curious, how does shifting work for pano shots? What makes it more useful than simply using an ultra-wide lens or stitching a couple shots together?

[Mike55]

and you are happy with this clarity? If so, then I'm just being over critical I guess cause this is about what I'm getting.


Definitely. These are totally unprocessed RAW images. They are as good as the 70-200 F4 and 70-300IS I had. For a wide angle zoom, you can't do much better. The haze made things worse as well.

[jacobsen1]

I'm curious, how does shifting work for pano shots? What makes it more useful than simply using an ultra-wide lens or stitching a couple shots together?

yeah, because you shift the lens (and really you should shift the camera) there is no paralax error and you don't need to warp the images at all. They line up PERFECT as layers in PS. All you need to do is blend the exposure differences (vignetting) and you're done. PS photomerge makes it laughable how easy it is. You just give it 3 images and you're looking at what I posted in about 15 seconds. A little cleanup/blending (especially with water) and you've got a file just like any other image you'd use in ~5 minutes or less depending on the amount of blending between frames.

Yes you can do it w/o a shifting lens, but shifting produces a purer image with less pixel blending.

[tomhide]

ever considered panos with shifting? The TS-Es do it well and there's a whole world out there for MF lenses on shifting eos adapters... It's less expensive since you already own a body...

here's an example with my 45mm TS-E:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/beach-panos/Untitled_Panorama2.jpg

Thats brilliant Ben. I've actually read about these technique on mags and on the net but found it bit hard to apply them for some of the long exposure shots particulary in the mornings when the light changes so quickly.
Also, I'm starting to get an appreciation for the result you get on MF and LF films cameras. Both the image quality and color wise.

There's a running cost factor that I'm thinking about so I'll see what I'll end up with in the near future.

Cheers.

[Stormin_24]

Have a look here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=134756), if you haven't already...

[Canonised]

@17mm - my attempt to capture my pet in a fun pose - to look like the Jack Russell in "The Mask" - oversized head and small body - :-)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/cyberlawprof/sasha1.jpg

[pixelharmony]

That's sharp :)

[jacobsen1]

http://www.syavalanche.com/wp-content/gallery/trip-south-2007/IMG_3456.jpg

my bad... was trying to preview a post and hit the submit button by mistake. Nothing to see here....

[Jman13]

'kay.

Interesting title for a second before the change... Nice shots.

[nicksan]

Nicely done...

[jacobsen1]

lol

whoops... I was trying to find some images of mine I'd posted in a for sale add... So I was using the thread preview tool to see them to save them... but it needed a title so I threw something in there and hit "enter"....

PM a MOD now so this can be deleted.

[beezwax]

as usual, fantastic photos Ben... always admired your work... great job

[scraggles]

I just want to know what the hell I'm doing wrong with my 17-40! These look great!

[boosted84wagonmonster]

nice dude, photos look great!

[BillyDigital]

The blues in that photo are fantastic! Nice work.

[Stormin_24]

lol

whoops... I was trying to find some images of mine I'd posted in a for sale add... So I was using the thread preview tool to see them to save them... but it needed a title so I threw something in there and hit "enter"....

PM a MOD now so this can be deleted.


You know, you can delete this yourself... There is an option for it...

[Tsmith]

Superb Ben!

Another of my posing pup.

Canon EOS 40D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
1/800s f/6.3 at 40.0mm iso200

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/94990635/original.jpg

[carreylu]

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/carreylu/IMG_7367.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/carreylu/IMG_7029.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/carreylu/IMG_7484.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/carreylu/IMG_6786.jpg
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm15/carreylu/IMG_6444.jpg

[i_am_hydrogen]

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4589/340otp215pj1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[gary88]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/2406308087_c32e133374_b.jpg

[00silvergt]

Wow that very sharp; what f-stop did you shoot that at gary88?

[gary88]

Wow that very sharp; what f-stop did you shoot that at gary88?

Here's the EXIF:
f/8
1/160
17mm
ISO100

The only sharpening I did in PP was a 100/.01/Lens Blur smart sharpen.

[00silvergt]

Here's the EXIF:
f/8
1/160
17mm
ISO100

The only sharpening I did in PP was a 100/.01/Lens Blur smart sharpen.

Can you post the pic without sharpening?

[tjespo22]

hey, does anyone have this lens and the 17-55 2.8 IS? what do you like better?

[jacobsen1]

You know, you can delete this yourself... There is an option for it...

lol, no I didn't, but it's been merged now anyway.

[JCheungPhoto]

Looks like there's no avoiding it, I have to get this lens over the 24-105 kit with a 5D...its ok I don't spend a lot of time in the 50mm range anyhow =)

[Madweasel]

Taken with a 40D:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/garlicpickle/Canon/IMG_0368warmaweb.jpg

And a 100% crop to show the sharpness. I still love this lens.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/garlicpickle/Canon/IMG_0368warma100web.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

Very nice shot madweasel, that's very sharp, took me awhile to understand that was just a crop rather then a telephoto shot

[JasonRussell]

Crap :( I was all ready to get a 135L but now Im really torn.

[John_TX]

Taken with a 40D:


And a 100% crop to show the sharpness. I still love this lens.


Wow, the crop looks great! The reduction & resize on the first picture really do it an injustice! I can't image what that looked like full-size! Very nice.

[JCheungPhoto]

Crap :( I was all ready to get a 135L but now Im really torn.

I'd recommend the 17-40 to you since you don't seem to have a ultra-wide angle lens but you do have telephoto covered =)