Is this 17-40 ok ?

[loebas]

As I have been reading a lot of people who got a bad example of this lens I wonder if I got a good or bad one.
Enclose two photos.
Hope to hear from you

[Cadwell]

Do the pictures look good to you? If the answer is "yes" then you got a good copy. That's all that really matters - whether you like what the lens does.

[loebas]

Do the pictures look good to you? If the answer is "yes" then you got a good copy. That's all that really matters - whether you like what the lens does.

You are right, but since I have been on this forum frequently you read a lot and makes you think how about mine.
Anyway this forum keeps you sharp !

[Cadwell]

You are right, but since I have been on this forum frequently you read a lot and makes you think how about mine.
Anyway this forum keeps you sharp !

If you mean hanging around here reading some of the doom and gloom threads can induce paranoia... I agree with you ;) :p ;)

For what it's worth, I think those shots look pretty good.

[Mark Kemp]

I have said it before - I once heard from mate of mines aunts mothers boyfriend's nanny that she saw a photo that wasn't quite perfectly sharp. From this evidence I have concluded that all my lenses are rubbish, my cameras all need a service and photography is a complete waste of time. Apart from that I'm not paranoid at all

[dpanicc1]

Mark, That's Great!
LOL

Dan

[aam1234]

Do the pictures look good to you? If the answer is "yes" then you got a good copy. That's all that really matters - whether you like what the lens does.

That's the best advice one could give about lenses. For me, if it's good in the real world then it's a good lense. If you read places like DPR you would think 90% of Canon lenses have faults one way or the other.

[ahmadof]

The shots look good to me, but i have no idea what faults i'm supposed to be looking for :)
no really, what did i miss? what are the problems with the 17-40?

[ron chappel]

they're not razor sharp as i would expect from that lens but how were the files post processed ?!
Using the right sharpness and contrast settings in photoshop is absolutally essential to getting the best out of any lens;)

[Citizensmith]

I picked up a fairly expensive APS camera. Oops
I bought a cokin style filter holder and a huge selection of filters for it. Probably used each once. Opps
Cheapy 2x Teleconverter. Oops
Close-up filter set that sucked. Oops

Done OK otherwise. I've owned a fair few crappy lenses but when I couldn't afford any better. In that case just accept it and make the best of the situation. People that whine about the quality of a $100 lens can get pretty annoying. Now I've got a couple of Ls and a selection of primes so I'm happy.

[aam1234]

Wrong thread maybe :cool:

[Citizensmith]

Wrong thread maybe :cool:

Yeah, I blame the fact I'm sick right now. What a dumbass.

[aam1234]

What a dumbass.

I hope you are not refering to me :?:

[lomond]

Other than resizing did you do any post processing or are the shots straight from the camera?
Also what white balance did you use?

Apart from some level adjustments and colour balance (maybe some USM) I think the shots look fine.
If you are concerned about the sharpness of the lens, and are using a filter for protection, remove it and try again. I know some cheaper filters can degrade the image quality.
I think in this case it just needs some post processing.

[mdr]

What ISO and shutter speed was used. Unsharpness may not be lens, but camera shake!

[alan sh]

Seems to have a lot of purple fringing (thats a joke !)......

The pics look fine to me.

[mdr]

Alan, why do you have the 17-40L and the 18-55? Do you actually use the kit lens?

[davidwegs]

It looks unprocessed and even then it seem reasonable to me. I have had that lens, it was sold after recieving my 16-35. If I were in the same place again, I would not have sold it, it is a great lens.

I don't typically use filters as they cut down the amount of light getting in and often induce flare or color shift.

[Jesper]

Loebas, are your photos 100% crops (i.e., one pixel on screen = one pixel in the original image)?

Did you have your camera on JPEG or RAW mode?
If JPEG, what contrast, saturation and sharpness settings is your camera set to?
If RAW, what settings did you use in your RAW conversion software?
Did you do any post processing on the images?
How do they look when you print them?

It's impossible to tell if your 17-40 performs as it should from two small photos without any further information.

If you want to test the sharpness of a lens, you must eliminate as many other factors as possible that can make a photo blurry: use a tripod, make sure the lighting is good, use mirror lock-up, use a remote shutter release cable, etc.

[Citizensmith]

I hope you are not refering to me :?:

Of course not, referring to my inability to complete simple tasks. :)

[loebas]

Loebas, are your photos 100% crops (i.e., one pixel on screen = one pixel in the original image)?

Did you have your camera on JPEG or RAW mode?
If JPEG, what contrast, saturation and sharpness settings is your camera set to?
If RAW, what settings did you use in your RAW conversion software?
Did you do any post processing on the images?
How do they look when you print them?

It's impossible to tell if your 17-40 performs as it should from two small photos without any further information.

If you want to test the sharpness of a lens, you must eliminate as many other factors as possible that can make a photo blurry: use a tripod, make sure the lighting is good, use mirror lock-up, use a remote shutter release cable, etc.

FIrst I apologise for questioning without adding any photo information
The photo was taken with a D300 in JPEG SMALL High Quality and comes straigt from camera.
In order to post the photo I used PS option Save for the Web (750x500).
Below you see my settings:
Parameter 1;Tv( Shutter Speed );1/1250;Av( Aperture Value )4.0;
Metering Mode Evaluative
Exposure Compensation 0; Whitebalance Auto; ISO Speed 400
Lens 17.0 - 40.0mm Focal Length 17.0mm

Hope this helps

[jonniewalton]

I have the absolute answer.

There is nothing wrong with your lens.............................................. ..

Therefore it must be your eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[cactusclay]

It looks like mine does at f4 -depth of field is rather shallow when shooting objects close up, in fact at f4 with two subjects,one about eight feet away and one nine feet away and I focus on the closest one, the other one will be slightly soft with my lens. Stop down and use a tripod and or flash.