Canon 17-40 F4 L Image Sharpness....

[tony4563]

I'm sending this lens back... Unless i've got a duff model, the images I get back from it don't make me say " hey, now thats a sharp picture" which to me is unacceptable for a lens this price. The images resemble something I would expect from a Cosina lens, no disrespect to Cosina intended (you get an average quality image which is reflected in it's cost) I expected a lot more detail for £700. My D60 works fine regarding focussing, because the images I get from my Sigma 70-200 2.8EX are really sharp and make me think it's money well spent. Canon is definatley second best compared. Am I expecting too much regarding resolution in wide angle lenses? I'm thinking of looking at the Sigma 17-35 EX or 15-30 EX instead. Would anyone who has the Canon 17-40 please give me their honest views and maybe some wide angle sample before sharpening and resizing, so I can compare. Thanks in advance to all that make this a great forum.

[bluebomberx]

Have any samples to illustrate your estimation?

[tony4563]

bluebomberx wrote:
Have any samples to illustrate your estimation?
I don't know how to get images onto this website,but I see that you have a 17-40 yourself. Would it be possible to e-mail me an image as it is just out the camera on standard settings. I'll reply with one of my own to compare. Are you happy with the quality of your "L" lens? Regards..Tony

t.rudak@btinternet.com

[tannoy]

I am extremely happy with my 17-40L and it is my second "sharpest" lens. I would be happy to e-mail you a downsized Jpeg if you e-mail me your address. mine is tannoy@earthlink.net

I have had a few slightly out of focus pictures which led me to believe he lens had problems until I spent a bit more time with it and looked at the averages.

Cheers,

Darrin

[tony4563]

Tannoy...I've sent you a quick snap to compare.

t.rudak@btinternet.com

[D60wannabe]

I love this lens!!! If you are not getting sharp photos then you have a bad one...send it back and get another. Let us know!

Paul:)

[neil_r]

I have got to agree, you must have a duff one. Mine is tack sharp on the D60.

Neil

[caldgrp]

While quite happy with my 28-135 and 50mm 1.8 lens on the 10D, I was taken aback by the high quality of the 17-40 F4 L prints. The sharpness and clarity of the rectilinear facades of NYC skyscrapers were striking

[Joytek]

I have a 17-40 F4 L too and am quite happy with its performance. The 7-200 F4 L is sharper though. I think it's just that the 17-40 is a wide angle and the other is more of a tele and so one gets more detail for the size of the sensor vs the size of the subject in the latter.

There is a fair amount of dust in my 17-40 already (had it only for two months).

w.

[Jorge]

Sharpness as in "my lens is very sharp" is quite relative.

I have had some mixed results with my 17-40/f4L and I still wonder how sharp it is compared to other copies.
I did this test some time ago for a discussion of the topic in another forum:

http://www.jorge.friserverplads.dk/17-40/17-40.htm

I admit that the chosen object matter is not the best, however it should give an impression of the absolute and relative (different apertures) sharpness of my copy.

I'd be very interested in seeing similar test done with other copies of the lens.