EF 17-40mm f/4L USM-What do you think?

The 17-40l is my favourite lens (admittedly on 5d mk II)

Sealed with a filter, it has proved to be a great travel companion on my world expeditions.

I did enjoy it on my old 450d, the colours and contrast were a step up from Sigma 10-20, but it really sings on FF I have to say.

Chris

Anybody got experience of this lens using it for sport, namely cycling (road or mountain bike) in situations where the 70-200 is just too long?

Phil

Great, affordable UWA on FF.

Not the best choice on crop, as there are better alternatives.

I've had one for a while and love it, I choose it as back then i shot film. Since then, coupled with a 50 f/1.4 has provided me with enough incentive to not buy a APS-C standard zoom.

I've rented this lens on two seperate occasions, it didn't "wow" me either time. YMMV? I love my 24-70 however

Thanks again everybody- I appreciate all your opinions.

Looks like I'm leaning towards the 10-22 canon. I am curios about the canon 16-35.

Like what most people already made clear, I wouldn't use the 17-40 on a crop. You can, but the alternative available for the lens would produce much more desirable results. The 10-22 is probably a better choice IMO.

johnnysart wrote in post #13103609
Thanks again everybody- I appreciate all your opinions.

Looks like I'm leaning towards the 10-22 canon. I am curios about the canon 16-35.

why not the EF-S 17-55IS...

Does anyone ever consider the 17-35? i never see a thread asking about one. i know they're a little older, i find it weird that they're never asked about. and for the price of a 40, one can purchase a nice 35.

It was a nice lens but I sold mines for a Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE it's alot better IMO.

DreDaze wrote in post #13104097
why not the EF-S 17-55IS...

Honestly- because its not an L lens and nobody's mentioned it before.

StraightDeezin wrote in post #13104180
Does anyone ever consider the 17-35? i never see a thread asking about one. i know they're a little older, i find it weird that they're never asked about. and for the price of a 40, one can purchase a nice 35.

I've never even seen this lens.

Our opinion of a lens is almost always relative to our perception of value, or what we get for our money. The 17-40 by itself, money out of the picture, it's a good lens. If you include the dollars and cents, my opinion goes down, because I can do pretty much the same stuff with the $190 Sigma 17-35.

Cedew, great pic's. The colors in the second one are great.

Thank you kindly. Truth be told, the 18-55 kit lens could have done the same. To me, wide lenses may as well be stuck at f/8, in which case, you don't need to spend $600+. Those are on a 7D btw.

cedew wrote in post #13105743
Thank you kindly. Truth be told, the 18-55 kit lens could have done the same. To me, wide lenses may as well be stuck at f/8, in which case, you don't need to spend $600+. Those are on a 7D btw.

Good to know I'll keep that in mind. I just bought mine 7D a month ago and I have a feeling I barely scratched the surface-I love this camera. I'm so glade I upgraded from digital rebel I bought in 2004.
My next lens will be a fisheye and was looking at the tokina 10-17 after that I'll be looking for a wide angle lens for scenery.