Just bought a 17-40L...thanks, I think...

[pfuller88]

Thanks for all the posts. It really helped me narrow down my selection. I now have an 85 1.8 Prime and the 17-40L (traded in a Sigma 18-125 for the L glass). I am getting great shots with both these lenses and am very pleased. The 17-40 covers the wide side plus the film camera classic 50mm range.

The "I think" in the subject line is becuase this forum keeps tweaking my interests on new ideas and I just spend more money. My next lens will be the 70-200 4 L.

I thought long about the speed and cost. I went with the 4 over the 2.8, rationalizing the cost and the 85 prime will cover the speed. Also I found the extra zoom in the Sigma not really needed as I can crop many pictures, still with adequate detail, to capture what I need.

Thanks again.

[Andy_T]

Well, there's always a bit of space in your lens lineup to squeeze in a 50/1.8, don'tcha think? :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: No, better make that a 50/1.4. Not expensive enough to live up to forum standards, otherwise :lol:

[griff2]

My 17-40 f/4 L is winging it's way over the pond from B & H as I type. I'm looking forward to using this as a replacement for the kit lens on the 300D. I got the 70-200 f/4 L first, and it is is a very good lens indeed.

[defordphoto]

My 17-40L gets a bunch of camera time. You'll love it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The "I think" in the subject line is becuase this forum keeps tweaking my interests on new ideas and I just spend more money.

Thanks again.

NO! Say it isn't so! I'm quite sure this is the first time that's happened! ;)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

//p.s. L.A. meetings ("L"-choholics ) are held in the back room on Tuesdays and Thursdays...

[Jon]

NO! Say it isn't so! I'm quite sure this is the first time that's happened! ;)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

//p.s. L.A. meetings ("L"-choholics ) are held in the back room on Tuesdays and Thursdays...

Yes, that certainly is a unique occurrance! Probably never happen again . . .

[eosster]

NO! Say it isn't so! I'm quite sure this is the first time that's happened! ;)
:lol: :lol: :lol:

//p.s. L.A. meetings ("L"-choholics ) are held in the back room on Tuesdays and Thursdays...

Yeah right....:).

[KenE]

I really want my 17-40L to be sharp, but it isn't, even after taking a trip to the Canon repair center in Irvine. Still need to do some quantitative tests on a good subject through the lengths and apertures, but every one of the 400ish shots I've done with it are just so-so. It seems a little improved since the trip south to Canon, but still doesn't seem right to me.

Out of the box, the 70-200f/4L was beautiful. Buttery is how I describe it. Vivid. If it weren't for the contrast in shot quality between the two lenses I probably wouldn't have known any different.

Not giving up!

[griff2]

Out of the box, the 70-200f/4L was beautiful. Buttery is how I describe it. Vivid. If it weren't for the contrast in shot quality between the two lenses I probably wouldn't have known any different.

There seems to be a strong division of opinion about the 17-40, I can't wait to evaluate it myself.

[Kennymc]

Mine is just fine, no problems with sharpness so don't worry...

[timmyquest]

The 17-40 is by far the strangest lens i've ever used.

My images are fairly soft out of the camera, but even the slightest unsharp brings the lens up to "L" quality.

Why is this odd though? because to my eyes, there is no real sign that unsharp mask was even used...it's kind of hard to explain. Needless to say, i'm happy.

[ed2day]

I don't know that there's a strong division of opinion about the 17-40. It's one of Canon's most popular lens and most seem to like it. I have it, it's one of my favorites, it's a big improvement over the kit lens. I don't think it's one of Canon's sharpest lens, but it's very good. I haven't seen anything better in the wider part of the focal range, including Canon's primes( I don't see/hear much about the expensive L primes). If you want to disect its performance it's a little softer in the corners wide open (like most lens), but nothing like the kit lens. It doesn't have the same awe factor I get from my 70-200 F4, but I don't think that's a fair comparison as extra-wide angles are a more challenging optical design.

[roanjohn]

No need to think..........this is a great lens.

Congratulations!!!

Ro1

[xstrio]

i`m also thinking about buying this lens but i can`t make my mind up, just lately there seems to be a lot of people complaining about it being soft or them getting a bad copy, apart from the build quality is it alot better than the kit lens

[pfuller88]

I have not had a chance to take shots outside yet. The flash (using a 420ex) indoor shots are very sharp. I will experiment outside with stopping down on the weekend., looking forward to it.


By the way, this lens is a new approach for me. I was always a zoom, zoom, zoom, the longer the better thinking guy. The more I shot the more I realized I liked the wider pictures that capture more. I find myself moving around more, but that compensates for all the donuts I eat. :lol:

[loebas]

i`m also thinking about buying this lens but i can`t make my mind up, just lately there seems to be a lot of people complaining about it being soft or them getting a bad copy, apart from the build quality is it alot better than the kit lens

If 99% loves this lens you will never hear them. If 1% is unsatisfied and complaing on the forum, you get the feeling that it is a lens with a questionmark.
A lot of people buy an L lens because they want to have an L for their personal image, and think that an L lens will make them a better photographer.
A lot of that people can't make a difference between TV/AV/ISO etc and will make bad photos due to user error.
They blame the lens but that is not fair.

If you understand the basics of photography in combination with feeling for composing-creativity and a L lens, you will get photos with great colors, sharpness and contrast.

[Wazza]

The 17-40L is my best lens I own, and you'll love it. As some people have said, it may be slightly soft. But with edits for prints or forum/website posting, we're resizing anyway, so only if you're keeping image at 100% size, does the slight softness affect you. UnsharpMask easily makes it look crisper. Just not as sharp from the click as say my 50 1.8. At least it gives us some playing room.

And yes, the range is also good also. Does cover the classic 50mm (at 31mm), and 35mm (22mm). Good luck with this exciting new purchase.
:)

[griff2]

ed2day wrote: It doesn't have the same awe factor I get from my 70-200 F4, but I don't think that's a fair comparison as extra-wide angles are a more challenging optical design.

My thoughts entirely.

[CyberDyneSystems]

One of the differences you are seeing in the 17-40mm vs. the 70-200mm may have more to do with focal length than image quality differences for any other reason.

Longer focal length lenses are simply sharper and more detailed than wide.
This is actually compounded by an impression of additional sharpness as offered by magnification.

If you compare 17-40mm to a good sharp telephoto you are doomed to be disappointed in the comparison,.

The true test to put it on an even playing feild is a 17-40mm against another wide angle zoom of similar focal length.

Put it up against the 18-55mm, Sigma 15-30mm and 17-35mm... or others,. and you'll see marked improvement in quality coming from the 17-40mm...

But it's best side by side showing is when it is compared to the double the cost 16-35mm f/2.8L... where the 17-40mm at half the cost hold it's own with virtually identical image quality :)

[Citizensmith]

A 17-40 and 85 is all I've carried for a while now. I also own a 70-200 and a 24 but those don't get much use.

The 17-40 and 85 make a great combo and very easy to carry around. Both wonderful lenses.