Canon ef 17-40 f/4 L or something similar?

[fetching]

I have been thinking about purchasing a wide angle lens for my XT and have been reading about the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, but I have been reading some fairly mixed reviews about it. This is going to replace my kit lens, but I also need something fairly wide as i do landscape and architectural shots.

Any suggestions for alternatives, priced similarly or lower?

[ed2day]

I recommend it without any reservations. Perfect for landscapes. Mixed reviews? I see it has a 9.1 rating on Fred Miranda, which is higher than the 24-70L and 16-35L--Canon's flagship wide and normal zooms that are twice the cost. Higher than any Canon prime in the same focal range with the exception of the 35 1.4L( a $1300 prime). I wouldn't get too wrapped up in someone complaining that there copy isn't as sharp in one corner wide open at 17mm when viewed at 100% crop as their buddy's copy. For me, this lens along with the 70-200 f/4 are no-brainers for the money. The only other Canon alternative might be the EF-S 10-22 if you want even a wider angle.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I agree with ed2day. I don't own either of the lenses, but the 10-22, and 17-40mm are probably the two sweetest lenses on the market. People rave about them. I haven't heard any mixed reviews about them ever. I think the 17-40mm would make a good walk around lens for some portrait, landscape, architecture, and other shots like that. The 10-22 though is just incredible, it's as wide as wide gets, but also more expensive. I donno about you, but if it was me, I'd still go with the 17-40L. Beautiful lens.

[Citizensmith]

The 17-40 is optically the equal of the 16-35. The most obvious differences between the two are price and speed but thats really it. I've a 17-40 and its a really good lens. Well respected all around, and as has been mentioned it tops almost all the primes in its range when it comes to optics. Good lens, go ahead, you'll not regret it.

[BottomBracket]

One more vote for the 17-40L. It is competitively priced and has a lot of bang for the buck. It's what I use as a walkabout lens, really sharp and the focal range is versatile.

[boomerang]

I vote for it...I just ordered mine from B&H so it better be good!

[sixshot]

I'm getting a 20D next month and will get the 17-40 at the same time. I have researched the lens I want to death and this has come out trumps. The 16-35 is nice, but for the extra cost I'd prefer to stick with the 17-40 as I don't need the extra speed. The 17-40 is great value and most reviews praise this lens. Plus, a deciding factor for me was the people on this forum who have recommended it numerous times.

[ScottE]

I have the 17-40 lens with my 20D. It is a good lens, but I did not find it wide enough for many landscape photos I wanted to take. I just acquired a 10-22 lens. I have found this to be a much better answer to my wide angle needs. I haven't got around to doing tests comparing sharpness or distortion, but the 10-22 appears to be doing well after a week of use.

I don't do much architectural photography, so the ability to keep straight lines straight is not that important to me. I suspect that at the wide end of its range that might be a weakness for the 10-22, but haven't done any test shots. For other landscape shots it has been great.

Scott

[lancea]

I agree with Scott. The 17-40 is great for landscapes and general building photography but not truely an architectural lens. You need something very wide to fit buildings into the frame unless you can get far enough away from them AND still not have anything in the way. Not any easy task in a city! I'd love to get my hands on a 10-22 EF-S to use ouside and inside buildings - but it's a specialist lens whereas the 17-40 is much more generally useful.

[fetching]

I agree with Scott. The 17-40 is great for landscapes and general building photography but not truely an architectural lens. You need something very wide to fit buildings into the frame unless you can get far enough away from them AND still not have anything in the way. Not any easy task in a city! I'd love to get my hands on a 10-22 EF-S to use ouside and inside buildings - but it's a specialist lens whereas the 17-40 is much more generally useful.


yeah, at this point i can't justify something specifically for landscapes and architecture, i need something that will be great for a number of scenarios, so this might be the right lens for me. :)

[malum]

yeah, at this point i can't justify something specifically for landscapes and architecture, i need something that will be great for a number of scenarios, so this might be the right lens for me. :)
Mine just arrived yesterday, what you describe above is the exact reason I bought it.

[pwell]

Best L lens for the $$. Just remember it IS an f4, so your indoor shooting capability is somewhat limited. But for the $$ a killer lens !

[GTogs]

I love a wide angle lens. I've had my 17-40 for two weeks now and it has surpassed my expectations! A wonderful lens!