Canon 17-40mm quality

[mrmusic]

I am aware that prime lenses are generally sharper than a zoom but the Canon 17-40mm L seems awfully soft to me ...especially at the wide angle end.

Has anyone else noticed this? Has anyone had a shot printed that was taken with this lens? Were its prints soft as well? Right now, im inclined to avoid it. :twisted:

[maderito]

I think YOU should post an example of what you consider to be soft images from the 17-40.

My experience is exactly the opposite of yours. I'm rarely disappointed with shots from this lens. They are almost always sharp. You don't need fast shutter speeds with wide angles to avoid camera shake, and I'm not usually chasing moving objects with this lens. So some of the usual pitfalls to capturing a sharp image are avoided. The inherent sharpness of the lens thus becomes evident on most shots -- and it is more than satisfactory compared to other non-L zooms (28-105/28-135) I have used. The consisent problem I have noted is purple fringing (chromatic aberration) at the widest end.

BTW - I have other Canon lenses I consider to be sharper (50/1.4, 85/1.8,and 70-200/4) but I still consider the 17-40 to be quite sharp. I make these statements not on the basis of formal testing but from my own subjective experience.

Are your images not sharp, or is it the prints, or is it both? How are you processing? I need more info to understand your observation.

[Jesper]

I've read many reviews about the 17-40L and almost everyone is very happy with it, and almost everyone says it's a quite sharp lens. For example, have a look at the reviews on fredmiranda.com (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&thecat=27). I've noticed my 17-40L is noticeably sharper than my 28-135 (OK, that itsn't an L lens, but it's not too bad either).

Maybe your expectations are very high, or you've been unlucky to get a bad lens...

[peter/c]

I have had the lens You mention for less than two weeks.After using the 'kit lens' that came with My 300d/rebel the 17-40l is just so much sharper.But then it should be at the price! the last reference to C/A worries Me though.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It is the sharpest zoom I have used.

[tannoy]

The 17-40 is my softest lens but still very acceptable for a wide zoom, I think lens variation is something to consider here.

Darrin

[John57]

17-40 is def my sharpest lens of 5 'L' zooms; infact the quality of the images from this lens led directly to my bank account being drained of funds for the other lenses!

[RichardtheSane]

It is the sharpest of my lenses also

mrmusic, what brand UV filter do you have on the front?

[neil_r]

I am aware that prime lenses are generally sharper than a zoom but the Canon 17-40mm L seems awfully soft to me ...especially at the wide angle end.

Right now, im inclined to avoid it. :twisted:

Post a sample so we can see.

I don't have a problem even printing up to 12x16 (after some post processing, of course)

N

[Webster]

What Richard said! Before deciding anything about the lens (about any lens) be sure to try it with no filter. (I know, I know, Canon says the 17-40 is not really sealed without a filter. Just wait for the sandstorm to blow away before making the filterless shots).

[scsmith10D]

Love my 17-40.

http://homepage.mac.com/scsmith/PhotoAlbum40.html

[mrmusic]

Woah Folks!!!! I never even said I had one..... I was refering to tests and other photos I have seen. I was... and still am thinking of getting one. My birthday is this month and since I have been soooooooo good all year....I plan a splurge at the Camera Store!

[RichardtheSane]

Trust me, the lens is sharp, it is a bloody great lens and I have been very impressed with the quality :D :D :D

[Darter02]

I love mine!!!

[Moses]

I don't have one, but will definitely get the 17-40 as soon as I find out what happened at the PMA.

I found a good review of the lens:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm