17-40L....

[tony4563]

I have a D60 and use a Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5 USM as my wide angle lens. Would I see a big difference in image quality if I part ex'ed this lens for the new Canon 17-40 F4 which has a great price for an "L" LENS? Don't get me wrong...this lens is quite good, but i'm after the best for my camera without spending silly money, and the price is within my range. Anyone got one at the moment?

[peeps27]

Hi Tony,

For what it's worth.

I am i UK and have just bought the 17-40. I was going to buy the Sigma 15-30 but opted for the Canon. I have only taken a few shots but so far, it is everything that I want. Crisp, good quality images. What you would expect from a Canon L lens.

I had done a lot of research on the web before purchasing and I have yet to see a bad review of the lens.

[tony4563]

Hi peeps27. I'm in West Yorkshire. What was the best price you got on this lens and where?

[peeps27]

Hi Tony,

I am from Nottingham and tried everywhere in the East Midlands. Jessops, Jacobs, London Camera, none in stock. I also tried Warehouse Express and many others from Digital Photo.

I eventually went down to London for the day and found one in stock at a "proper" camera shop at the top of Tottenham Court Road called West End Cameras. Seemed Ok guys and cost £699.99 earlier this month.

Tel: 020 7387 0787 or sales@westendcameras.com.

I have no connection with these guys, just that they had it in stock and a fiar price.

There was another place that had the lens in stock for £669 (i think) but no personal callers - mail order only.

When I asked the same question on here last month I was directed to a place in Leeds that had them in stock.

Hope this helps

Paul

[evilenglishman]

--

[tony4563]

Thanks for that info Peeps. £699.99 is the norm from most shops i've seen it advertised, so I'll probably wait for Jessops to get one in and try it out and compare with the 20-35 3.5-4.5 USM that I have already. Still very tempted though, according to reviews i've read on the web.

[tony4563]

Thanks for that too Evilenglishman. I'll consider that company and pay on the old plastic if Jessops give me a laughable part ex against the 20-35.

[Stoneh]

Tony,

Mail me with the price you want for teh 20-35 if Jessops dont give you a decent price

Cheers

BTW has anyone got any sample images of teh 17-40? I wouldnt mind having a look

[tony4563]

Will do stoneh...

[Jeppe]

Sample

EF 17-40 @ 19mm.

http://www.naturfotografen.net/10D/sunset.jpg

[jfretless]

"...the new Canon 17-40 F4 which has a great price for an "L" LENS?"

I believe the great price comes from the fact that it's only a F4. As it's always been, there is a premium for that coveted extra stop of light. (speaking of a 16-35 F2.8.)

John Harvie

[FocusPuller]

I have a 10D and have had it for 2 months. I originally bought it with a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX (I think??) this lens was not good to use. Too heavy/AF slow and bad colour fringing. I exchanged this lens for a Canon EF 20-35 3.5-4 USM. Nice and light, excellent AF, but optically-pants! It had immense focus loss across the image. Especially worse on the right of frame than the left. I took a print to the dealer who said, "Duff lens. You sometimes get that with Canons quality control. Here, have another."
I went away somewhat stunned that a £400 lens would have no quality control. Anyhow this replacement lens was just as bad. All the same characteristics. To put it into perspective my Canon S40 was producing better results than my 10D. If it wasn't for my trusty 50mm f1.8 I'd have thought my 10D was a clunker.
In the end, I felt 'forced' into going for the 17-40L f4. I say forced because I wanted a decent w/a zoom for my expensive 10D and I thought that Canon of all people could produce something for £400, now I was spending £700 to get what I wanted.
This is a very long way round of saying that the 17-40L f4 is absolutely stunning. Better built, better handling, fabulous optics and worth £700.(Did I really say that.) The 20-35 f3.5-4 is in my opinion is an overpriced waste of space and I am stunned at its lack of quality for the price. A big black mark against Canon on that one.
P.S. I am a huge Canon fan: EOS 10D, G2, S40, 50mm f1.8, 17-40Lf4, BJC-8200(A4), i9100(A3) and an XM1 DV camcorder.

[partialresponse]

I have had the chance to compare these two lenses (I was facing the same decision) and there is no question that the 17-40L is superior....I took pictures with both at the store. The 20-35 3.5-4.5 is a good lens (better contrast than the sigma 15-30 EX) and should not disappoint. But compared with the 17-40L it is seen to lack the latter's contrast and resolution. I'd really wanted to buy the 20-35 (because it really does make nice images) but I could not bring myself to overlook the superiority of the 17-40L...even at twice the price. I will be acquiring one soon. If you are desperate to see, I can email you some large/fine jpegs of the comparison.

Rgds

kofi

[tony4563]

Thanks for your reply FocusPuller... I really needed a second opinion because I found it hard to convince myself that a lens costing nearly £400 from a top marque brand was nothing really special for the cash paid. You can waste a lot of money with this hobby if you don't buy right. Forums like this give people the chance to do so, because you can rely on people who actually use these products, to review them, and give their honest opinion, no matter what the manufacturers claim in their hype and advertisements.....I feel a trade in coming along........

[tony4563]

You too Partialresponse....sorry you posted a reply before I read your comment. Yep, gonna empty piggy and go for it I think.