Canon 17-40 F4L

[Saturn]

Hello:

Anyone have any experience with the 17-40F4L zoom? I'm staying with Canon optics and the better price-point for this lens (1/2 the price of the 16-35 is very tempting. I don't care about the slower maximum aperture of the 17-40 (versus the f2.8 max of the 16-35).

I've heard thru sources that this lens lacks sharpness, in comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

[Cadwell]

If there is a difference in optical quality between the 17-40L and the 16-35L it is a very small one indeed. I've heard people claim that the 17-40L is superior. Really it's probably too close to call.

The 17-40L is a superb lens and if you don't need the extra stop of the 16-35L then buy it with confidence.

[Saturn]

Hello again:

Guess I should've checked the other posts. The Tokina 17 discussed on another post, for under $400 looks like a great value. I've got the 28-135, which isn't wide enough with my 10D. I can live wiithout the zoom on the very wide end.

Thanks.

[Persian-Rice]

If you look at the overall package, considering price, then yes the 17-40 is far superior. You get slightly more zoom , almost equal optically and half the price.

The Tokina 17 is a good lens, there is a good review about it here.

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html

Its not an amazing lens, but for the price a very good one indeed.

The only real concern with the Tokina I read here and in several other reviews is CA. This site mentions softness around the edges, which is obvious, but its the only place I have heard about this. Other then that, the best review you will find.

[Tom W]

If you can live without the zoom, you might also consider the Sigma 20 mm f/1.8. It has an odd focus scheme, but it is a good lens.

[defordphoto]

I've heard thru sources that this lens lacks sharpness, in comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

Absolutely incorrect. Stopped down the 17-40 outperforms the 16-35. Wide open the 16-35 outperforms the 17-40, but they are very, very close. The reviews (not forum gossip) I have read show them so close that if you don't need the extra stop, don't pay for it.

I own this lens and it gets a lot of camera time.

[ralee]

I own the 17-40L as well and I love it. I dont need the extra f stop for my shooting habits with this focal length and if you dont require the 2.8 then make this lens a serious consideration for your choice. Most find the optical quality very close to the 16-35L :)

[Pekka]

17-40 F4L is an excellent lens for the money. I very seldom need larger apertures with wide angle (I have Sigma 14/2.8 , Sigma 20/1.8 and Canon 35/2 for those needs) and as in my copy f4 is very sharp (may vary with lens sample) I can use it wide open with confidence (if you use those Sigma you'll need to stop them down to get similar acutance). Taking night shots and shots in low light works very well with Mark II. The lens is very well balanced, focuses fast, quietly and accurately and is water-sealed (waterproof with filter on).

[Lamium]

Hello:

Anyone have any experience with the 17-40F4L zoom? I'm staying with Canon optics and the better price-point for this lens (1/2 the price of the 16-35 is very tempting. I don't care about the slower maximum aperture of the 17-40 (versus the f2.8 max of the 16-35).

I've heard thru sources that this lens lacks sharpness, in comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

If you don't need the extra stop then go fot the 17-40, it is really an awesome lens!

[evilenglishman]

i dont even need to use USM on images from this lens

[msvadi]

I know a guy who used to have 17-40, and was extremelly happy with it on his 10D. Then he switched to a full frame camera, and he said, he was practically shocked by the poor performance of his 17-40 in the corners. He switched to 16-35 lens.

[WestFalcon]

The 17-40 shoots all my group shots at weddings and class reunions. It is sharp from edge to edge at f8.

[drisley]

The Tokina 17 is a good lens, there is a good review about it here.
http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html
Its not an amazing lens, but for the price a very good one indeed.
The only real concern with the Tokina I read here and in several other reviews is CA. This site mentions softness around the edges, which is obvious, but its the only place I have heard about this. Other then that, the best review you will find.
Actually, if you read that review, he does mention that the Tokina has slight softness and CA in the corners, but is still better in those areas than the Canon wide angle L zooms (ie, 17-40L and 17-35L).
He also says that optically the Tokina prime is better than the Canon wide angle L zooms. That's pretty impressive.

"The Tokina AT-X Pro 17 mm f/3.5 is a very respectable wide-angle lens for the "APS-size sensor" cameras. Perfect it isn't, but from what I can tell, it appears to at least match if not BEAT Canon's best WA zooms in optical quality, at less than a quarter of the price (compared to the 16-35 f/2.8) or half the price (compared to the "affordable" 17-40 f/4). Its weakest points are slight corner softness and a tendency to mild chromatic aberration near the edges -- but in the former respect it appears very similar to Canon's top of the line WA zooms, and in the latter, it appears significantly better. "

[Jesper]

Anyone have any experience with the 17-40F4L zoom?

That's one of the most popular Canon lenses, especially on 1.6x crop factor cameras like the 300D, 10D and 20D. It's a great quality lens and not expensive for an L lens. It's the lens I use most on my 10D.

Here is a comparison between the EF 16-35 f/2.8L and EF 17-40 f/4L (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml). As you see, the difference is very small, and sometimes the 16-35 is slightly better, sometimes the 17-40 is slightly better.

If you don't need the f/2.8, don't spend twice the money and get the 17-40.

[evilenglishman]

but is still better in those areas than the Canon wide angle L zooms (ie, 17-40L and 17-35L).
He also says that optically the Tokina prime is better than the Canon wide angle L zooms. That's pretty impressive.

When I was looking for a wide angle lens I was shown this review and dismissed it as the 100% crop examples are awful - sure the tiny shots of full images look good at what, 300 pixels.
I just dont believe the claim above by looking at the 100% crops on that page.

[Pekka]

The Tokina 17 is a good lens, there is a good review about it here.
http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html
Its not an amazing lens, but for the price a very good one indeed.
The only real concern with the Tokina I read here and in several other reviews is CA. This site mentions softness around the edges, which is obvious, but its the only place I have heard about this. Other then that, the best review you will find.
Actually, if you read that review, he does mention that the Tokina has slight softness and CA in the corners, but is still better in those areas than the Canon wide angle L zooms (ie, 17-40L and 17-35L).
He also says that optically the Tokina prime is better than the Canon wide angle L zooms. That's pretty impressive.

"The Tokina AT-X Pro 17 mm f/3.5 is a very respectable wide-angle lens for the "APS-size sensor" cameras. Perfect it isn't, but from what I can tell, it appears to at least match if not BEAT Canon's best WA zooms in optical quality, at less than a quarter of the price (compared to the 16-35 f/2.8) or half the price (compared to the "affordable" 17-40 f/4). Its weakest points are slight corner softness and a tendency to mild chromatic aberration near the edges -- but in the former respect it appears very similar to Canon's top of the line WA zooms, and in the latter, it appears significantly better. "

Petteri is low-end (prime) lens advocate amateur photographer who has only one L lens and simply no real experience on using L lenses and his reviews should be read keeping that in mind. For example paragraph "sharpness" he says "The AT-X is a sharp lens. At its best, its resolving power clearly exceeds that of my 10D." The comment is accompanied by an 100% crop image which is plain bad in quality (at f8!). 17-40L is better at f/4.

He writes well (he studies political history), but content is often negotiable :)

[roanjohn]

I am very happy with my 17-40 f4L.

I think that an "L" lens not only excels in build and sharpness, but the contrast and color that it produces are unmatched. I used to have a Tamron 28-75 that was a very sharp lens, but the colors it produces doesn't give that certain "L POP". Something to be said about this lens is the 3D image quality it produces. It is also the "PERFECT" size for my everyday shooting. Just can't say enough about it.......its one of my fave....... :lol: :lol:

BTW, almost all the pics in my gallery are from this lens.

Ro1

[johneo]

Hello:

Anyone have any experience with the 17-40F4L zoom? I'm staying with Canon optics and the better price-point for this lens (1/2 the price of the 16-35 is very tempting. I don't care about the slower maximum aperture of the 17-40 (versus the f2.8 max of the 16-35).

I've heard thru sources that this lens lacks sharpness, in comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

I own the 17-40 L and I approve this message

Excellent lens! I too had the 28-135 and quickly realized I needed something wider and went with the 17-40 L. It takes very sharp photos and, though I've never tried the 16-35, the 17-40 is a very good buy (even though I paid more for it than it costs now :x )

Only thing you should be aware of is that on a 10D it isn't as "wide angle" as you would hope (17mm x 1.6 = 27mm) but still wider than most.

Since getting my 7NE I use it on that the most of the time now (TRUE 17mm!! :D ) but still use it on the 10D often. I notice someone mentioned soft corners???? Not from what I can see on prints and slides ... maybe with a full frame digital but not on my 7NE.

Bottom line ... excellent lens, excellent quality, excellent results and well worth the money if you have a need for this lens. You can't go wrong!
Would I like the 16-35 L? Oh yeah! :wink: but on my budget, I'd rather spend the difference on other equipment and I can live with the 17-40 L and close to similar results.

[drisley]

The Tokina 17 is a good lens, there is a good review about it here.
http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html
Its not an amazing lens, but for the price a very good one indeed.
The only real concern with the Tokina I read here and in several other reviews is CA. This site mentions softness around the edges, which is obvious, but its the only place I have heard about this. Other then that, the best review you will find.
Actually, if you read that review, he does mention that the Tokina has slight softness and CA in the corners, but is still better in those areas than the Canon wide angle L zooms (ie, 17-40L and 17-35L).
He also says that optically the Tokina prime is better than the Canon wide angle L zooms. That's pretty impressive.

"The Tokina AT-X Pro 17 mm f/3.5 is a very respectable wide-angle lens for the "APS-size sensor" cameras. Perfect it isn't, but from what I can tell, it appears to at least match if not BEAT Canon's best WA zooms in optical quality, at less than a quarter of the price (compared to the 16-35 f/2.8) or half the price (compared to the "affordable" 17-40 f/4). Its weakest points are slight corner softness and a tendency to mild chromatic aberration near the edges -- but in the former respect it appears very similar to Canon's top of the line WA zooms, and in the latter, it appears significantly better. "

Petteri is low-end (prime) lens advocate amateur photographer who has only one L lens and simply no real experience on using L lenses and his reviews should be read keeping that in mind. For example paragraph "sharpness" he says "The AT-X is a sharp lens. At its best, its resolving power clearly exceeds that of my 10D." The comment is accompanied by an 100% crop image which is plain bad in quality (at f8!). 17-40L is better at f/4.

He writes well (he studies political history), but content is often negotiable :)
I have one of the best L lenses you can buy, the 135L, and I've tried the 17-40L. I can say that in my experience, the optical quality of the Tokina is excellent! I've seen full crops of 17-40L images, and they are definately no better than the ones I get from the Tokina. And, if you read Petteri's review about the CA, he even puts a link to an image shot with a Canon Wide Angle L lens (17-35L) that shows much more CA than any of the sample of the Tokina. That is not subjective, that is fact.
As far as flare goes, the Tokina absolutely BLOWS away the Canon L zooms (and any other wide angle lens).
Anyway, if you are looking for a wide angle lens, dont need zoom, and want to save big $$ over the Canon L lenses, the Tokina is an EXCELLENT choice. In fact, I dont think there is anything out there in it's class (built like a tank, 17mm prime).
If you prefer a zoom, as most do, and have the money, the Canon 17-40L is definately a winner too.

[drisley]

I just got back from a day at the museum with the 20D and gang.
I shot pictures with the Tokina 17mm, and the 50F1.8II.
When I got home, I had a very hard time telling which pictures were shot with which lens, even at 100%. That really says something about both the optical quality of the Tokina, and the lack of distortion.