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 Gear Reviews Lens Reviews
Thread started 02 Dec 2014 (Tuesday) 13:21
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, reviewed by Lester Wareham

TOGGLE RATINGS BETWEEN ALL AND Lester Wareham (showing now: Lester Wareham)
Overall Rating9
Overall Image Quality9
Value for Money9
Bokeh8
Sharpness8
Contrast8
Focusing8.5
Must Have8
Suitability to Intended Use9
Got What I Expected9
Ownership Status: "own"

Click here for detailed specs and sample photos.
Click ratings to see total averages and rating distributions.
List all reviews of Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
 
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Lester Wareham.
Dec 02, 2014 13:21 |  #1

Used as my standard zoom on APS-C for many years this now acts as my ultra wide lens on full frame. On full frame works well with the 24-105mm.

IMAGE: http://www.ware.myzen.co.uk/GalleryPics/Photos/Landscape/Landscape%20Stourhead%20Gardens%20091%20061106.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.ware.myzen.co.uk/GalleryPics/Photos/Landscape/Landscape%20Stourhead%20Gardens%20160%20061106%20BW.jpg

My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,683 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Dec 03, 2014 19:25 |  #2

I use the same combination and find that they work very well together.
One point to note is that (at 17mm) this lens distorts quite a lot. To me this is not a problem - it is a characteristic that I exploit to get dramatic perspectives on the right subject.
To me the best aspect of this lens is the way it renders colour, it is simply better (in this respect) than any other lens that I own or have (yet) tried. I am lusting after the new 16-35 F4, but if the colour isn't as good then I won't be getting one - turned down the 16-35 F2.8 L Mk2 for the same reason.


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Dec 04, 2014 01:39 |  #3

johnf3f wrote in post #17309767external link
I use the same combination and find that they work very well together.
One point to note is that (at 17mm) this lens distorts quite a lot. To me this is not a problem - it is a characteristic that I exploit to get dramatic perspectives on the right subject.
To me the best aspect of this lens is the way it renders colour, it is simply better (in this respect) than any other lens that I own or have (yet) tried. I am lusting after the new 16-35 F4, but if the colour isn't as good then I won't be getting one - turned down the 16-35 F2.8 L Mk2 for the same reason.

Hi john, do you mean the wanted/expected perspective distortion or the unwanted geometric distortions?

The latter can be corrected for you fairly automatically along with chromatic aberrations etc using DPP, I think LR might be able to do this as well.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,683 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
Dec 04, 2014 17:23 |  #4

Sorry I should have been clearer in my post! I deliberately use my 17-40 at 17mm when I want to get really close to subjects yet get the whole thing in frame. I like this particularly for things like Car Shows as it can give a very dramatic and pleasing, to me, effect.
So yes I love the "wanted/expected" distortion that this lens gives, where I don't want it I simply step back a little and zoom in a little.
I also prefer to use the 17-40, rather than my 24-105 where their ranges overlap. I don't know if there is any scientific evidence to support this but I prefer the images and that's all that matters to me!

Thanks, yes I do know about the correction software available. My lens doesn't show too much chromatic aberration (but I am not a pixel peeper except on wildlife).


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
wmcy
Senior Member
623 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Charlotte, NC
Dec 19, 2014 23:17 |  #5

Thanks for the perspective as I recently purchased this lens.

Wm.


Canon 5D IV, Canon 24-70 f/4L IS USM, Canon 35 f2 IS, Canon 100 f/2.8L IS, Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, 600-EX III RT Speedlite, ST-E3-RT Speedlite Transmitter

LOG IN TO REPLY

2,331 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, reviewed by Lester Wareham
FORUMS Gear Reviews Lens Reviews


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 0.00182 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is kodds
874 guests, 324 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016