Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 19 Oct 2016 (Wednesday) 05:16
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Will the Canon 17-40 f4 be good for landscapes and Milky Way shots?

 
Sdentrem
Member
Joined Feb 2015
Oct 19, 2016 05:16 |  #1

First a bit of context. I currently shoot exclusively birds, first with a 7D II and 100-400 II, but I've also added a 500 f4 II and recently a new 5D IV. I've never really taken a landscape photo, but in my birding travels, I'm often out early morning or late evening, and get to see some beautiful glimpses of nature. In those times, I say to myself "wouldn't it be nice to have a lens for landscapes" (especially recently with great fall colours). Also, my cottage is at a very dark site, and doing some astrophotography (Milky Way, time lapse, etc) would be great.

I have a chance to pick up a used 17-40 L f4. Would this be a suitable choice? I'm only going to be using this infrequently, so I don't need the best available, but I would like something of decent quality. I always have a tripod around for my 500 f4, so stopping down for more quality or lack of IS shouldn't be a problem.

Appreciate any advice.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
708 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by eddieb1.
Oct 19, 2016 07:07 |  #2

I've used the 17-40 for a long time. Great lens. You'll get people who will tell you, especially here, that you should get the Canon16-35 f/4. Yeah, very nice lens. Worth the cost premium. I don't think so. Plus you can't beat the 17-40 at current prices. Here's a thread for the 17-40. Has your answer:
http://photography-on-the.net ...read.php?t=1251516&​page=1




LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
FuturamaJSP's Avatar
2,226 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Oct 19, 2016 07:29 |  #3

you cant even get sharp corners at f8 so i wouldnt purchase it even if it cheap unless you think you will be able to resell it for a higher price

you will know what im talking about if you compare the 17-40 to the two telephoto lenses that you currently own


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DAexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
708 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by eddieb1.
Oct 19, 2016 07:31 as a reply to FuturamaJSP's post |  #4

Again, go here:
http://photography-on-the.net ...read.php?t=1251516&​page=1

OP, it's your money. You'll find a lot of people willing to spend it for you.;-)a




LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
FEChariot's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by FEChariot. 2 edits done in total.
Oct 19, 2016 08:02 |  #5

If you have a 6D or 5D4 that can handle high ISO better than your crop camera 7D2, I would say f4 would be good enough for astro work. But you are probably going to want to stay with 2.8 or faster on crop. Then there is the fact that the 17-40 isn't really that wide for crop either. Tokina has the 11-16 I and II and the 11-20 all 2.8 for crop, but they all don't handle flare well. They are great for astro, but keep the sun out of the frame for landscape. The Canon 10-22, is pretty good for astro at 3.5 on the 10mm end but not as good as 2.8. The Canon is much better with flare.

Rokinon makes a 10/2.8 and a 14/2.8 which are both great for both astro and landscape, but are all manual.

Tokina has the new 14-20/2.0 which is great for astro but still is supposed to have flare issues although I haven't seen as many reviews on that lens.

Edit: Oops I didn't see that you had a FF camera too. In that case the Rokinon 14/2.8 would probably be a good pair to the 17-40 and give you better astro results.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
7,221 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Oct 19, 2016 09:30 |  #6

About 18 months ago, I moved from an apsc 60D to a full frame 6D. I used a 10-22 on the 60D, which lots of folks rave about. I found the 10-22 to be an excellent apsc UWA zoom. I bought a 17-40 for my 6D. The 17-40 on 6D is better than the 10-22 on 60D. My guess is that the folks who berate the 17-40 don't use one. It is much better than its reputation.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,719 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Oct 19, 2016 09:42 |  #7

I bought a Samyang 14 2.8 for night sky stuff on the 5D3. With the 5D4s ISO performance I would have no issues using an F/4 lens. The 17-40 is a nice, lightweight lens with very favourable IQ compared to its much more expensive cousins. I'd grab one without hesitation.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
bildeb0rg
Goldmember
bildeb0rg's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
uk
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by bildeb0rg. 2 edits done in total.
Oct 19, 2016 13:58 |  #8

i wondered the same thing last night so i tried it. clearly i have no idea what i'm doing but i think i have sort of got the milk way, so i would say yes, the 17-40 can be used for astro, just not the ideal lens. far better for landscapes imo

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Oct 19, 2016 14:59 |  #9

Heya,

The old venerable 17-40L is plenty good for lanscape and on a newer body with higher ISO abilities, it's good enough for astro (though it has pretty significant coma and corners are going to be soft wide open). That said, it's still a great lens. Plenty sharp. It's amazing how often this lens is referred to as not being sharp, compared to something 20+ years younger. It's plenty sharp for an infrequently used L quality lens and it really is a nice lens for it's 2nd hand cost these days.

Go for it! If you really get into it and feel the need for more, then trade it out for something else. These lenses move easy.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,792 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Oct 19, 2016 16:48 |  #10

No idea for Astro but I found the 17-40 excellent for landscapes. True it's not the sharpest tool in the box but it renders colours beautifully, is well made, robust (mine survived being thrown across a road!). It's distortion is more than we like these days but easily corrected and it is CHEAP!

True the 16-35 F4 L IS is a better lens (I now use one) but the 17-40 is still capable of great images and costs less. I would say get the 16-35 as I think it is well worth the extra pennies but that does not stop the 17-40 giving very pleasing images at a reasonable price.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdentrem
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Feb 2015
Oct 19, 2016 16:49 |  #11

Thanks for advice all. I've decided to get it and am picking it up tomorrow.




LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
708 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Oct 19, 2016 16:50 as a reply to Sdentrem's post |  #12

You won't be sorry.




LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,792 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Oct 19, 2016 16:57 |  #13

Have fun with the 17-40 - I liked mine for over 8 years. If you really get into landscapes then the 16-35 F4 might be worth trading up to but for occasional use the 17-40 is far more than adequate. If you do decide (at some point in the future) to upgrade then you will get most of you money back so it is a cheap way to start on landscapes and may be all that you need.

Some disagree but I rather liked my 17-40 on crop sensors (APSC), true you change the field of view but still a nice landscape lens.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
FuturamaJSP's Avatar
2,226 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Oct 20, 2016 01:14 |  #14

Bassat wrote in post #18161057 (external link)
My guess is that the folks who berate the 17-40 don't use one. It is much better than its reputation.

and you have compared the 17-40L to the newer 16-35 f4 IS?

Other than it being cheaper how is the 17-40 better than the 16-35 IS?

The OP already have two of the best Canon lenses so it just doesnt make sense to get a cheap but very mediocre ultra wide lens


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DAexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
John27
Member
John27's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Glasgow, Scotland
Oct 20, 2016 02:39 |  #15

Sdentrem wrote in post #18160903 (external link)
I have a chance to pick up a used 17-40 L f4. Would this be a suitable choice? I'm only going to be using this infrequently, so I don't need the best available, but I would like something of decent quality.

Appreciate any advice.

Firstly you say you have a chance of a second hand 17-40 f4 which would suggest it will be reasonably priced. Secondly you mention you will be using it infrequently and that you don't need the best and also that it should be of decent quality. Having used one and after looking at the post of example
17-40 f4 pics, I would suggest that it will fulfil your needs.

I think the main thing about lens purchase, especially expensive ones, is firstly affordability and the need for the specific lens. Others will gladly spend your money, but only you can decide if the cost matches your needs. Just my tuppence worth




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,506 views & 4 likes for this thread
Will the Canon 17-40 f4 be good for landscapes and Milky Way shots?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0011 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is Gmacs
831 guests, 368 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017