17-40 F4 anyone use this lens

[KiwiRob]

Does anyone use this lens, if so what do you think of it, is it better to save up for the 16-35?

[Belmondo]

The best analysis would obviously come from someone who owns both, but I doubt there are many who do. I have the 17-40L, and I love it. The difference beetween it and the 16-35L is basically 1 f-stop and a lot of money. Optically, the 17-40 holds its own---after all, it is 'L' glass.

I suppose if you really think you're going to need that 1 f-stop, the decision tends to make itself. Otherwise, save your money for a good down payment on another lens.

BTW, the 17-40 is a lot lighter. The 16-35 weighs quite a bit.

[Scottes]

I also own the 17-40 but not the 16-35, and agree completely with Tom. The 17-40 is a very nice lens.

[maderito]

Does anyone use this lens, if so what do you think of it

I had read about the 17-40L but hadn't committed to buying it until I walked into our local camera store and the sales guy put one in my hand. I wouldn't give it back to him. It looks and feels that good :)

Awhile back, I noticed on one site that the 17-40L was the most popular lens purchase. That possibly explained why it took me 2 months to get the circular polarizer I wanted from B&H.

The 17-40L is now my standard lens when I'm shooting outside. Subjectively, I don't think it's as sharp as an 70-200/f4 Canon L lens I also own, but that may have to do with magnification. (Magnified images with good contrast and blurred backgrounds generally have a lot of pop - even if they are not tack sharp.)

I'm not a particularly experienced photographer - but for the shots I take, f4 and higher has always been fine. Then again, I don't own the 16-35/f2.8 - so ignore this comment if you like.

The reviews of the 17-40L are generally excellent. Surely, you've seen them.

My complaints about the lens:

1. The lens hood is huge and doesn't travel well in my camera bag.
2. The filter size is 77mm - not a typical size.
3. At the wide end (17 mm), their is significant chromatic aberration.
4. There isn't a lens that goes from 40mm to XXmm that would complement the 17-40L.
5. Folks talk about the long lenses - e.g. 70-200/f2.8 - being attention grabbers because of their size and color. The 17-40L with lens hood attached also attracts a lot of attention and admiration - which I totally enjoy.

BTW - I'm holding the 17-40L in that shot under my name :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

This lens is the best deal in a high quality wide angle zoom going.

This is part of the reason it is so popular.

As to the difference Vs. 16-35mm?

I think it is ALL in the f/stop.

If you need f/2.8 in your wide zoom,. and have lots of extra cash...

I love the lens and would not part with it either.

Maderito?
77mm not a typical size?

It seems to be Canons most common size... most of the lenses I own are 77mm?
Just curious what is typical?

[maderito]

Maderito?
77mm not a typical size?

It seems to be Canons most common size... most of the lenses I own are 77mm?


CDS,

You're right. I was confusing the 77mm with the 67mm filter size for the 70-200/f4, which I believe is unusual.

Thank for pointing out the error.

[thomascanty]

I rented and used a 16-35 for a while, but eventually bought the 17-40L instead. The extra f-stop wasn't enough of an incentive for me to spend the extra money. As for clarity, the lenses are about the same in that aspect, or close enough for me, anyway. I've been very happy with my 17-40 so far.

[Burninfilm2]

Super lens..Probably the sharpest I own. The one stop can be an issue if you shoot a lot of low light stuff, without flash like I do, but with that focal length, handholding is posible even with very slow shutter speeds. Guess the real question is how much $$ is 1 mm & 1 stop worth to you..Go for it.
Bob <><

[slin100]

It's a great lens. I used to have the Canon EF 24/2.8. IMO, the 17-40 is sharper at the same focal length. I sold the 24 because it backfocused pretty severely on my 10D. The 50/1.8 beats it out for sharpness, though. Not a surprise to anybody, I would expect.

The lens is rarely usable indoors without a flash unless you crank up the ISO. I use flash 95% of the time indoors and bounce it off the ceiling whenever possible. The 16-35 with its extra stop would help a lot, but I couldn't justify spending nearly twice as much. At around $699, the 17-40 is a great bang for the buck L lens.

[khenn]

Has anyone used this lens for wedding photography, both indoors and outdoors? How does it perform in the different lighting situations? Does anyone have any examples?

[Jim Larson]

Has anyone used this lens for wedding photography, both indoors and outdoors? How does it perform in the different lighting situations? Does anyone have any examples?

There is a good 16-35/2.8L vs 17-40/4L comparision on the Fred Miranda web site. :roll:

[InExtremis]

There is a good 16-35/2.8L vs 17-40/4L comparision on the Fred Miranda web site. :roll:

What if you have to compare the 17-40 4L to the 17-35 2.8L ?
I can have both for the same price, the later being used but in excelent condition.

Regards

Andre

[DaveG]

There is a good 16-35/2.8L vs 17-40/4L comparision on the Fred Miranda web site. :roll:

What if you have to compare the 17-40 4L to the 17-35 2.8L ?
I can have both for the same price, the later being used but in excelent condition.

Regards

Andre

In most tests that I've read, the 17-35 f2.8 does not do as well as either the 17-40 f4L or the 16-35 f2.8L. Having said that, in the real world I'm sure that it would be OK.

[BrettD]

I love my 17-40, but haven't used the 16-35, so can't really comment.

Michael Reichmann has his comparison here:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

In conclusion he says regarding the 17-40 / 16-35 / 17-35 :

"My recommendation is that if you already own the 16-35mm f/2.8L there's no need to change. It's "six of one half dozen of the other" when comparing the two in terms of overall image quality, and the extra stop in speed may well be important to you. If you own the older 17-35mm f/2.8L then an upgrade may be in order since both new lenses are superior. If you don't yet own a super-wide zoom, and don't absolutely need the extra speed of the 16-35mm, then by comparison the new 17-40mm lens is a real bargain and an excellent lens in its own right."

Brett D

[Vegas Poboy]

I have the 17-40 and if you don't need the extra stop the lense is well worth the purchase. I've used it both indoors and out & it prefer using it outdoors only because I have a 28-70 f/2.8 I like to use indoors due to the zoom. I feel I have to get in too close for people shots with the 17-40.

[JoeCanon10D]

I love the lens, it is my standard lens. I shoot a lot of landscapes with it, and since I don't want to shoot them at F2.8 the F4 aperture isn't a problem for me. It is a well built solid lens. Oh yea, the $600 savings didn't hurt either. The main thing is what do you shoot, and do you need the extra stop.

[jjguest]

i have it with d60 and i am very happy
http://www.pbase.com/image/24940407.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

Does anyone use this lens?

Just a little more info,

Since it's introduction,. the Canon 17-40mm has become Canon's highest selling "L" lens. It is outselling most of the less pricey lenses as well by a large margin.

Part of this is due it's it's being so fitting for the huge amount of 1.6X CMOS cameras Canon has sold in 4 different Camera models,. and part of course is due to it's realtively affordable price point alongside it's f/2.8 elders.

So yes, people do use this lens! :mrgreen: