20d + 17-40L can someone do me a favor?

[jpsimon]

Ive been reading about how the 17-40L isn't as sharp as it should be on the 20d body... can someone take a couple pictures and upload the original picture (no size reducition) so i can see the sharpness/etc it does provide.

or just point me in the direction of someone who has already done this.

thanks a lot.

[roanjohn]

I've had this set-up.........and the results were pretty sharp from corner to corner.

Ro1

[jpsimon]

how does the sharpness compare to the 100-400L? anyone that has both of these lenses, could ya chime in!


TIA

[petiot]

Ive been reading about how the 17-40L isn't as sharp as it should be on the 20d body...
thanks a lot.

I think people should stop thinking and saying that a lens sharpness can vary depending on the body it is used on. That (at least to me) is non sens. If there is a lack of perceived sharpness between two bodies using the same lens, the normal, logical, objective, and sensible approach would be to think that it is due to the body not the lens. Unless you have a polymorphic lens that adapts its optics qualities to the body using self controlled micro adustement nano particles!! ;)

you could reformulate your question and ask "i have been reading that the 20D does not appear to be as sharp as other body (e.g. the 10d) using the 17-40 lens ..."

cheers

Dan

[DeeplyDigital]

mine is as sharp with the 20D as it was on the 10D.

Of course a lot depends on holding the camera+lens
still, focussing correctly etc. and not moving once
focussing has been achieved...

All my lenses, L and non L work perfectly with the 20D,
all are straight out of the box (so is the 20D).

Here are two examples of the 17-40,
the first one I didn't focus properly, the second is almost right -
both down to user error or rather user sloppyness.
The next headshot in this sequence is dead sharp but not posted.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47271

and here

the last three pics 'Hawthorn Trees' etc. were shot with 17-40

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=331042&highlight=#331042

J.
-

[defordphoto]

how does the sharpness compare to the 100-400L? anyone that has both of these lenses, could ya chime in!


TIA

Both the 17-40 and 100-400 are sharp lenses no matter what body they are connected to. That other thread you are reading is someone who is allegedly having some sort of problem. Who knows what.

I have both lenses and, as you can see, three different bodies I can attach them to. They perform the same no matter what body I use. I have also have a Drebel for a short time and a D60 and again, it made no difference what body I used, these lenses operated exactly the same.

Just because you read one or two complaints on a forum does not mean there is a problem. People operate their cameras in so many different ways that you cannot judge the sky is falling because of that.

Get the lens. You will not be unhappy.

[chris.bailey]

To my mind you cant compare the 17-40 and the 100-400 as they are very different animals. If you like the 100-400 though you will like the 17-40, whatever you connect it to. There do seem to be some problem 17-40's or 20D's out there but thats no reason not to buy one.

[jpsimon]

yeah i love my 100-400L.. ill probably be buying the 17-40 near my birthday... which is in a couple weeks.

good times.

[jpsimon]

by the way, thanks for the responces everyone!

[evilenglishman]

Both the 17-40 and 100-400 are sharp lenses no matter what body they are connected to. That other thread you are reading is someone who is allegedly having some sort of problem. Who knows what.


this has been noted by a few people (myself included) and the 20D was the fault