L Lens Blasphemy

[Croasdail]

Okay - needed a wide for my family trip at the end of the month so I bought a 17-40l, and it showed up today. Perhaps my expectations had been set way to high, or I am just that bad, but I expected to be rocked by this lens... and wasn't. Build is quit good, focus speed is excelent... so with those parts I see it's L-ness. But first impressions of color, contrast, sharpness are below my 70-200 sigma and 300 f2.8 L, which I didn't expect. Now for full disclosure - I always have a learning curves with my new lenses... it always take a while to learn how to treat them right. I also shoot sports more then anything else so I am not experienced with wides. But with that said, I was expecting more from the first date with lady L. It took me about 4 dates with the new Tamron to figure it out. Basically what I am looking to you all for is some advice on how to have a better second date with the new L. Where is the sweet spot for this lens - help a slow learner get a jump start.

Cheers!

[cdhender]

I don't own this lense yet, so I can't give you any advice. But I was just reading something similar here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/233104

Hope this helps.

[Croasdail]

I don't own this lense yet, so I can't give you any advice. But I was just reading something similar here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/233104

Hope this helps.

Hey thanks - just read through it - I am feeling better all ready. I need to do some more shooting to make sure it is just me - and not the lens. I think I know where blame most likely will land... ;)

[LarrySilva]

I have three L lens 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 ff2.8 and the 17-40 f4 and of all three the f4 is my favorite. Its rock solid in terms of durability and sharpness. My other lenses tend to be soft

[lancea]

Perhaps my expectations had been set way to high, or I am just that bad, but I expected to be rocked by this lens... and wasn't.
Not long after I got my 17-40 I posted similar sentiments (at least the part I've quoted you on). After extensive reading of every test and forum-post I could find, I placed my order and I too expected to be instantly amazed - but wasn't. Instead, I struggled to assure myself that it was worth all that money - i.e. much sharper, better colours and contrast than my 18-55 kit lens. I couldn't see a dramatic difference.

It was then that I started looking for an answer, and found out about sharpening, RAW, why it's just plain silly to blow images up really big on a monitor, how the state of the light affects apparent sharpness, and why you have to be careful to select a useful focus-point. All thanks to buying the 17-40! Once I started doing side-by side comparisons against the 18-55 with identical sharpening I could see my new lens was indeed sharper. I stopped comparing it and concentrated on getting the best pictures I could. It's an impressive lens in every way - especially the focussing and the build. But yes - I do think your expectations were, like mine, set too high. So many factors come into it.

As for recommendations, I think the 17-40 is good across the whole range of aperture and zoom. Concentrate on getting the focus right, but be wary of looking for too much sharpness in fine detail when using it at the 17mm end. I found that link on FredMiranda is very useful too.

[neil_r]

I don’t know if my expectations are lower, but I really liked this lens "out of the box". I find it sharp and it produces excellent colours. I must admit I rarely use it wide open but even when I have I am more than happy with the quality.

Here are some examples that I am more than happy with, these are not exceptional they are just what I have come to expect from this lens.

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=554 (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=554)

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=558 (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=558)

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=1805 (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=1805)

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=606 (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=606)

N

[kram]

Neil, nice shots and also great information below each shot. Very comprehensive. Is it a lot of effort to get all the details filled for each shot or is it more of a software choice?

[Cadwell]

:shock: Sacrilege! Take him out and burn him straight away. Blasphemer and heretic! No lens other than a Canon L can be any good, and all L series lenses are perfect! :shock:

On the other hand… the 17-40L is a damn good lens for an ultra-wide zoom. It isn’t really fair to compare it’s optics with Canon’s outstanding 300mm prime or Sigma’s rather nifty 70-200mm f/2.8. Compare it with other ultra-wide zooms and I think you’ll find it’s rather good.

Cadwell (who would never DREAM of using anything other than Canon L – honest) :twisted:

[neil_r]

Is it a lot of effort to get all the details filled for each shot or is it more of a software choice?

It is all in the software, The web site is using Exhibit Engine 1.4 (RC4) developed by our own Pekka Saarinen :D

The info is stripped out of the EXIF and displayed with the image.

Cheers

N

[blackviolet]

heretic!! what time is the public stoning?! just kidding. there have been a few L lenses that i have not been terribly happy with and have returned. i have 3 in my arsenal that i absoultely love (24-70 2.8, 135f2, and 80-200 2.8), plus a few non L gems (85 1.8, bigma, sigma 15mm fisheye). i looked at the 17-40 but it just wasn't what i wanted. i thought it was typically L sharp, just not as wide as i wanted on a 1.3 body.

[Pekka]

17-40L has lot of variation between copies. If you feel you got a bad one (soft on f4 or at 17mm or 40mm), get it exchanged. A good 17-40 is sharp at f4 and equally sharp at 17 and 40 mm. I think it is a very good choice for a wide lens.

[Croasdail]

Second date went better.... though I must admit at one point I cheated on Lady L and spent a little time with my new Tamron 28-75. It was early in the morning before sunrise with foggy overcast skies. I decided to shoot raw.. and it was a good thing. The exposure meter on my 10d is malfunctioning so I took a few test shots - unfortunately I under exposed by 1/2 stop on the final shots. Here is one of the shots with the 17-40. Other then correcting for the underexposure (+1/2 stop) and a little ISM (+30%) after reducing and converting the image to 1010 pixels wided - this image is pretty much straight from the camera. I do need to send the 10d in for repairs and will send this lens in with it to be calibrated ( canons suggestion). We may not be in love yet... but at least we are getting along now.... thanks all!

http://www.pbase.com/atravelor/image/44289958

By the way - Ms Tamron did very will - which is saying something if you read my earlier threads on that lens when I got it. I will post some results later - but lets just say looking at the images in Raw Shooter - they were very close... very very close. Cheers!

[Croasdail]

So here is the bottom line on this thread. I am not sure if I got a good one or not - like I said above I will be sending it in with my camera body to have canon look at both together since I know I have issues with my camera body. But what has coming ringing very load and clear to me is the limitation is with me, not the equipment. I took both my new Tamron and L with me this weekend to do some shooting and the results were so close I was very surprised. And I an now convinced that it is not that I have a good tamron or a bad canon - it is just that my talent / eye is not developed enough yet to exploit the capabilities of these two lenses to their fullest. Lesson learned here is at my current skill level I probably over spent on this lens as I can not yet expoit it. The good news is in the future as I get better, the lens will not be a limiting factor. Bottom line advice I would give based off my experience is don't wait and save for that ulitmate lens... buy what you can afford and shoot the heck out of it - it is the only way you will learn. Once your better, and have saved up more, then move up. I have a lot more shooting to do..... cheers.

[condyk]

The good news is in the future as I get better, the lens will not be a limiting factor. Bottom line advice I would give based off my experience is don't wait and save for that ulitmate lens... buy what you can afford and shoot the heck out of it - it is the only way you will learn. Once your better, and have saved up more, then move up. I have a lot more shooting to do..... cheers.

Good for you. I remember when I first posted here asking for advice on a sub £200 300mm style zoom and most people responded with get a 70-200 f4 L (more than twice the price ... and a £200 outlay at that exact time was stretching it!) because I will only lose money upgrading eventually.

Well, I chose to ignore this 'good advice' and, after a few kind people who'd actually read and understood what I wanted had made more appropropriate suggestions, I got a SH Sigma 70-300 APO Super II. As you say, it was really great to just go out and shoot and learn on digital, which is what I'd said I wanted to do, and also discover if getting back into photography was actually going to be a long term thing for me.

I then bought the recommended Canon F4 L when I got some extra cash and found it unsuitable for what I'd said I wanted it for!!!!!!! So, I sold it quickly and have moved on and up since and lost no money at all in the process ... in fact I am in profit! So, the easy 'get an L' style answers are not necessarily the best and sometimes we need to just understand better what the individual is asking for and respect any financial and other constraints.

I'm now exactly at the point where I know I am the limiting factor and so I can grow into my whole system at my own pace.