Please guys confirm me. is canon 17-40 f4L mm is sharp as the monster 70-200 f4L IS?

[L.J.G.]

I have both and the same as others I find the 70-200 F4 IS is sharper than my 17-40. That said though the 17-40 is no slouch either and not as bad as many like to make it out to be. Maybe I have a good copy, I don't know, but I have little complaint with it. What I also like about it is I can use it on my 5D2 or my 40D and it works well on both.

[thephotographynut]

Originally Posted by Tsmith

You people that dismiss the 17-40 f/4L as being owned in IQ compared to 3rd party lens evidently haven't used one.

I own it. I don't find the IQ that impressive. I've seen copies of this lens that were decent and usable but I've also seen copies that were worse then a kit lens when it came to sharpness. The copy I ended up with is usable but noticeably soft from the center to the corners. On a CF, it has since been replaced by the 15-85 as my primary go to lens as the 15-85 blows the 17-40 out of the water.

Originally Posted by Tsmith

No its not as sharp as any of the current Canon 70-200's in production but its certainly not far off.

You must be lucky to have had an extremely good copy. The copies of the 17-40 I have used don't even come close to the quality to the 70-200's I have.

[KarlGB77]

On a crop, you are better off getting the 15-85.
Way sharper than the 17-40 and has IS.
I love mine on my 550D.

[rwhardy]

if you want wide and sharp on a crop get an ef-s 10-22. i have it and just bought the 17-40 because i'm swapping to full frame.

[rwhardy]

Originally Posted by rwhardy

if you want wide and sharp on a crop get an ef-s 10-22. i have it and just bought the 17-40 because i'm swapping to full frame.

the 10-22 seems sharper

[bigpow]

Here's how I use mine:
1-shot
Center AF
Focus subject smack in the middle
Then crop to desired composition.

I left out something, on my prev comment: only 3rd party zooms suck - 3rd party primes can be 1st rate (even compared to Canon's)

I personally don't find 17-40 range make sense on crop. Love the 15-85 on croppers.

[JersFocus]

Originally Posted by bigpow

Here's how I use mine:
1-shot
Center AF
Focus subject smack in the middle
Then crop to desired composition.

I left out something, on my prev comment: only 3rd party zooms suck - 3rd party primes can be 1st rate (even compared to Canon's)

I personally don't find 17-40 range make sense on crop. Love the 15-85 on croppers.

Wait what? You are seriously saying all 3rd party zooms suck?

[silverant]

No.

even 70-200 f 4 non IS is sharper than 17-40

[Lloydd]

Its not exactly unsharp. This is a cropped processed version and a 100% of the straight out of camera version, wide open at 3.2s

Edit- sorry, f/8

[Lloydd]

Likewise with this, not exactly ideal conditions and I'm by no means good with a flash. On an old 1Ds2, second attachment is 100% SOOC

[ejenner]

Originally Posted by Marco2011

I love my 70-200 f4 L is. and I need a wide angle lens that produce same results.
Please can anyone confirm me will it produce same results as 70-200 f4L IS?

Thanks in advance.
Marco.

Not even close at any aperture. You'll need a TS-E 17mm to get close at the wide end and probably a prime in the 24mm range for that FL.

The 70-200 f4 IS is one of the sharpest zooms out there and compares with primes, you're not going to find a wide zoom with comparable sharpness.

[amfoto1]

don't you think Canon might have made more money if they had added a red ring (which cost ~$10~20 in manufacture cost) to 17-55?

It probably costs pennies to add a red ring to a lens. But in the case of the 17-55 it will never happen.... In fact, no EF-S lens will ever be an "L". Can't be, by Canon's own definition of what makes an "L"...

1. Lens must include exotic optical elements (aspherical, UD, ED, fluourite, etc.)
2. Lens must be built to exceptionally high standards and offer top performance (sort of a nebulous statement).
3. Lens must fit and work and be compatible with all EOS cameras past, present and future.

Since EF-S lenses are not usable on a lot of EOS cameras, none of them will ever get the coveted red ring or L-series label. That doesn't mean that EF-S lenses aren't nearly equally capable.

Notice that there is no specific mention of add'l weather/dust sealing, etc. That's not necessarily part of the definition. Sure, some L-series have enhanced sealing... but others don't.

Besides, if the 17-55 were an "L", they'd probably charge an extra $500 for it... and a red stripe wouldn't make any better images than it does now.

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by Tsmith

You people that dismiss the 17-40 f/4L as being owned in IQ compared to 3rd party lens evidently haven't used one. The only real negative you can give this lens is its soft extreme corners on a FF body and Pincushioning, though the later is easily corrected in post processing.

No its not as sharp as any of the current Canon 70-200's in production but its certainly not far off.

I used to own it. Sold it to buy the 17-55 f2.8 IS. It beats the 17-40L for sharpness, speed, reach, and IS. Not much down side there.

[sempaidavid]

I miss my 17-55 so much that I am considering buying another crop camera just to get one. It is far sharper than any other lens in that range. Because of my experience with it, I am quite disappointed in the 24-70 actually. I know...I Know...flame away, so the 17-55 just has better IQ.

[marcosv]

My 70-200/4L IS (which I sold) was optically better than my 17-40L.

The 17-40L is sharp, but, it does suffer from aberrations at the corner/edges, wide open and especially at the wide end. Stopped down, it's great.

I prefer the 17-40 over the 16-35 because the 17-40 is smaller and lighter and because I don't use ultra wides that much, and when I do, I usually have the option to stop down.