Best and Worst L's

Sp1207 wrote in post #13076981
Weak contrast, color, and sharpness compared to the faster, less expensive Tamron 17-50.

You're the first person I've ever seen rate the Tamron's contrast and color as superior to the 17-40. In fact, the opposite holds true if you skim various sources of feedback.

Mike55 wrote in post #13082722
You're the first person I've ever seen rate the Tamron's contrast and color as superior to the 17-40. In fact, the opposite holds true if you skim various sources of feedback.

Then compare at the same price level to the Sigma OS version. And unless you can link to a specific resource (I can for contrast and sharpness, despite it not having color), I'm going to call BS on that statement on the Tamron being worse.

Edit: If you're on crop there's no reason to use the 17-40L. None.

Yes, those black and white charts really show the color difference, lol. I've used both lenses outside, in the real world. The Tamron is a hair sharper, the Canon has better color and micro contrast. That site aslo says the 15-85 is sharper, and I owned that too, and my 17-40 smoked it. It's obvious that site has a bad copy of the 17-40.

Sp1207 wrote in post #13082757
Edit: If you're on crop there's no reason to use the 17-40L. None.

The one reason I could see is that if a person was using it in a harsh environment. Since the 17-40mm has weather sealing (w/ filter) and a metal body.

But that's about it.

camera dude wrote in post #13073493
Nikon 14-24 L

WIN!!!

pitabread wrote in post #13082800
The one reason I could see is that if a person was using it in a harsh environment. Since the 17-40mm has weather sealing (w/ filter) and a metal body.

But that's about it.

I use it on a crop because it's reliable. My 17-40 has been dropped in mountain creeks, hit by sand storms, submerged in snow, used in hail, etc. It's a fantastic wilderness lens and the results are consistent. I've had other lenses just plan crumble in those situations. If Canon made a 17-50 2.8 EFS with its build quality, micro-contrast, and color rendition, I'd buy it. But they dont.

The only issue I had was that it came new out of the box with a front focus problem and it went to Canon twice, and they did nothing to improve it. Moving to a MF adjust body solved the problem. I'm guessing a lot of 17-40's had that issue. Canon's lens QC seems to be lacking, to say the least.

pitabread wrote in post #13082800
The one reason I could see is that if a person was using it in a harsh environment. Since the 17-40mm has weather sealing (w/ filter) and a metal body.

But that's about it.

But Canon doesn't make any weathersealed APS-c bodies, so your weakest link becomes the camera. Not that consumer lenses are necessarily bad at weathersealing.

And if you don't like TDP's copy you can check PZ's copy. They don't have the Tamron non-VC (sharper, especially in corners) for comparison, but we can see the 17-40 there performing as we would expect from TDP's sample crops. I personally think the 17-40L is a terrible lens for 'microcontrast' because of the large amount of CA and LoCA (I know saying something without a link is basically 100% worthless, but I've not seen any from you yet so....)

Sp1207 wrote in post #13082852
But Canon doesn't make any weathersealed APS-c bodies, so your weakest link becomes the camera.

That's true, although the 7D would be the closest I guess.

Sp1207 wrote in post #13082757
Edit: If you're on crop there's no reason to use the 17-40L. None.

I respectfully disagree. I really liked the 17-40 as a walking around lens on an APS-C body.

Sp1207 wrote in post #13082852
But Canon doesn't make any weathersealed APS-c bodies, so your weakest link becomes the camera.

True, but the 7d is better than the other crops in that regard.

And if you don't like TDP's copy you can check PZ's copy. They don't have the Tamron non-VC (sharper, especially in corners) for comparison, but we can see the 17-40 there performing as we would expect from TDP's sample crops. I personally think the 17-40L is a terrible lens for 'microcontrast' because of the large amount of CA and LoCA (I know saying something without a link is basically 100% worthless, but I've not seen any from you yet so....)

TDP also claims the 15-85 to be sharper, and I found the opposite in my own dealings. I owned both lenses at one time, and the 17-40 beat it in IQ. Here's a link:

http://www.parkcamper.​com …sus-17-40L-comparison.htm

I've had and/or used the 17-40's competitors throughout the last few years, and have kept the 17-40. I've found it a superior landscape lens to all of them when assessing the total package. My complaints are obvious: short range (an extra 10mm would be nice, but walking forward a few feet solves that), and F4. But it hasn't been enough to dump the lens for newer, shinier models. Why? The rendition and build quality. Superb, refined.

bjielsl wrote in post #13076035
Eventhough I have the 50L and the 70-200 I voted for the 24-105. It has been the only lens I have never traded, sold or thought about getting rid of. It is just the perfect all around lens. It has been my workhorse for 6 years and still looks and feels like the day I got it. I think it is the most underapreciated L lens.

+1. love the 24-105.

yourdoinitwrong wrote in post #13072644
This thread may incite a riot but I voted for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II as the best zoom. Of the ones I have used it's by far the best. The one I liked the least is the 100-400, not for the IQ but I couldn't stand the push/pull zoom and the variable aperture didn't work for me. Loved the reach though.

The push-pull mechanism is rather important to birders. It really grew on me. I was more disappointed with the antiquated IS system it used.

The 100-300L seemed bad. Construction hideous. Probably good up to 200mm, though

The 70-200 2.8 II is the best IMO from the choices given.
I don't think there's a standout bad L lens in the current lineup. Some are a bit long in the tooth (eg 24-70) and others are compromised in one way or another by their very design (28-300L due to huge range and the 50L where bokeh/speed take precedence over ultimate sharpness).
The 14L Mk 1 was the weakest L IMO, pretty poor IQ and still very expensive. 24TSE Mk1 and 16-35 Mk1 were so-so too.

70-200 2.8 II is amazing. favorite lens, hands down...