Show off your 17-40

[timmyquest]

I'm not convinced yet. I think i'm gonna get the 17 f/3.5 for much less.

Unless of course you can show me that the 17-40 is nice and sharp, which i dont think it is.

Prove me wrong.

And Drisley, show off that thrifty 17

[digitalmono]

Is this sharp enough? There's no sharpening tool applied here.

Ok, I'm far away from being called a good photographer, that's why all the credits goes to the lens!

http://www.pbase.com/digitalmono/image/36928951

[eosster]

I say it's nice shot and very sharp in my eye and I am looking it with calibrated monitor.

Cheers,

Charles,

[timmyquest]

In all fairness it is also at f/8.

I guess i should have specified, i'd prefer to see f/4-f/5.6 shots.

[drisley]

Hehe,
Well HERE (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/20d/IMG_4032.jpg) is a big picture (50% crop) taken with the Tokina at 17mm, F5, 1/50s, ISO800.
Here is another (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/12112004/IMG_4031.jpg), and another (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/12112004/IMG_4063.jpg), all taken at F5, ISO800 with the Tokina.
;)

My apologize for the slight noise. The images were slightly underexposed, so I bumped up the exposure compensation during raw conversion. That is usually a big no-no in my workflow, but I had to do it. ;)

Ah heck, HERE (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/12112004/IMG_4161.jpg) is one more for good measure

Have I mentioned this lens cost $340 and is aluminum with a chrome-plated brass mount and is built like a tank with a 3yr warranty?
:lol:
Btw, Olegis, I havent heard a peep from you since you got yours :eek:

[RichieHatch]

Here is one from the 17-40 thats handheld on my 300D at f4 available light:

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/33287835.jpg

This one at f5 and at 40mm:

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/32364885.jpg

This one at f6.3 at 17mm:

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/32364902.jpg

This at f8/15secs at 17mm (on the 20D):

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch/image/36141008.jpg

Most of my shots with this lens are very sharp. Its a joy to use and very balanced on the 20D/300D with grip.

Good luck

Richie

[MarkHaldane]

Took my 17-40 back and exchanged it for the Tamron 28-75 (I was looking for more of a walk-around than a wide) because it was rubbish and not worth £600.

[evilenglishman]

Took my 17-40 back and exchanged it for the Tamron 28-75 (I was looking for more of a walk-around than a wide) because it was rubbish and not worth £600.
1. you paid too much.
2. you got a bad one.

[maderito]

I sometimes think the 17-40L is overrated. Then I surprise myself and come home with an unexpectedly good pic. I think I'm not skilled at the technical details needed for good landscape shots. I don't use a tripod, the wind always seem to be blowing, etc.

Here's one that I shot at 21mm f/4.0:

http://www.pbase.com/maderito/image/37782748

I can't remember why the lens was set at the widest aperture. I usually shoot at f/8 to f/11 with this lens, like this one:

http://www.pbase.com/maderito/image/26334857

It seems that WA lenses - zooms and primes - have inherent optical design challenges that result in lenses which can't compare with standard focal length and telephoto lenses. But WA photography offers *many* possibilities for creative use of your camera. You've probably seen this wonderful article by Petteri Sulonen:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle.html

[timmyquest]

It seems that WA lenses - zooms and primes - have inherent optical design challenges that result in lenses which can't compare with standard focal length and telephoto lenses. But WA photography offers *many* possibilities for creative use of your camera. You've probably seen this wonderful article by Petteri Sulonen:

I mainly want it for when i go out and cover events for my paper, which in a sense is more of a reason to get the 17-40.

[EoSD30fReAk]

this one was taken at iso 100 and f4

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v59/EoSD30fReAk/in%20the%20park/park04.jpg

[robertdrake]

I've only taken a few shots with mine, and so far, I'm not very impressed. For now, I'll just conclude that I'm not holding the camera steady enough, or there is some other issue I'm overlooking. My shots aren't nearly as sharp as my 50mm 1.8II. Are you guys using a tripod to take your shots? I've only got one pic that even approaches the ones I'm seeing here (shot at 17mm, f5.6).

[roanjohn]

TQ - not convinced yet huh?? The 17-40 is absolutely my most favorite lens...........the color, contrast and sharpness are all superior .........if you are covering local events for your paper, the fact that you can go from 17 to 40 just gives you that extra versatility in framing your subjects........

.......it has proven itself many times........

just get it........

Ro1

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I shoot almost exclusively with the 17-40mm lens, and love it a whole lot. It's my "art" lens, due to the WA distortion I get with it.
I never use any sharpening in-camera, but sometimes in photoshop. Only sometimes. Here's an example, and you'll see that this photo was ofcourse manipulated in PS, and honestly, I can't remember if I applied any sharpness to it..what matters is that the final result is sharp enough.
This (http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/cars/cobraad.jpg) is a 2.8MB jpeg file.

I'd post more pix, but I am getting uncomfortable with posting my stuff online..

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I should add that I did my research before buying the 17-40 lens, and decided to get it mainly due to:
1-It's cheaper than the 16-35mm L, and sharper at the WA end.
2-It's glass is coated to prevent sensor reflections, the 16-35mm is not.
3-It has L glass.
4-I really had to be convinced to buy any lens other than Canon, and make that Canon L glass after I got the 17-40mm lens.

My advice is if that if the WA lens that you want to buy will NOT be your main lens, then just go for the Tokina, Tamron or Sigma. It won't really matter. Otherwise, get the Canon 17-40, or even the 14mm if you can afford it.

[transcend]

I've only taken a few shots with mine, and so far, I'm not very impressed. For now, I'll just conclude that I'm not holding the camera steady enough, or there is some other issue I'm overlooking. My shots aren't nearly as sharp as my 50mm 1.8II. Are you guys using a tripod to take your shots? I've only got one pic that even approaches the ones I'm seeing here (shot at 17mm, f5.6).

I thought the same thing, until I started to use the camera right. This, while not the greatest picture, was handheld, in really bad light, and just sorta stuck out in the guys face and panned.

http://www.transcendmagazine.com/fraser/gallery/go-karts/CRW_5354?full=1

This was while spinning in a circle trying not to lose my kneecaps. I actually SOFTENED this one a bit due to all the crap flying in the air.

http://www.transcendmagazine.com/fraser/gallery/Powder-Fun/CRW_5253_proc_work_Large?full=1

[Tom W]

Well, here's a couple.

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/37050105

1/30s f/5.6 at 40.0mm iso1600 with my 10D.

And another:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/37050111

1/15s f/5.6 at 17.0mm iso1600 also with my 10D

And if you're not thirsty yet:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/37050106

1/10s f/4.0 at 40.0mm iso400

All are handheld, available light.

[eosster]

Tom, I would like to have bottle of that for a sample...brings memory from my army day. Use to get it for dirt cheap at AFFES store(small PX store).

Cheers,

Charles,

[Tom W]

OK - one more:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/36847554

1/320s f/11.0 at 17.0mm iso400

[Tom W]

Tom, I would like to have bottle of that for a sample...brings memory from my army day. Use to get it for dirt cheap at AFFES store(small PX store).

Cheers,

Charles,
I can tell you that it isn't cheap in Tennessee. Honestly though, I'd prefer a good single-malt Scotch.