Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 07 Jul 2012 (Saturday) 23:36
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is 17-40mm L soft?

 
LunaP
Member
83 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jul 07, 2012 23:36 |  #1

I just purchased a Canon 17-40mm f/4L. I've been testing this lens at different focal lengths at different apertures. I mounted it on my 50D with aperture priority setting on a tripod with a cable release. I've read that this lens doesn't perform well at f/4, but to those who have this lens, I want to ask you a few things.

How's sharpness of your copy at 17mm at f/8? Mine is not sharp. Compared with my 10-22mm at 17mm at f/8, 10-22mm performs much better to me.

With the exception of focal length at 17mm, 17-40mm performs pretty well between f/8 and f/11, but the IQ declines from f/16. What are your experiences?

I've attached two images, first one was taken with 17-40mm at 17mm f/8, the second one was taken with 10-22mm at 17mm f/8. 100% crop center, no editing. I know it's usually user error, but I am trying to figure out if I have a bad copy. The reason why I bought this lens is because I want to upgrade to 5D Mark II in the near future.

Thank you for your input in advance!


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



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


Canon 50D || EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM || EF 50mm F1.8 II || EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM || EF 17-40mm f/4L || Adobe Photoshop CS6 || Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 || Photomatix Pro 4
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jul 07, 2012 23:51 |  #2

Stop pixel peeping. Your lens is fine.


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jul 08, 2012 00:20 |  #3

Double post.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jul 08, 2012 00:25 |  #4

You're comparing the lenses at different optimums. The 17-40 will be weakest at 17mm, though that might be a sweet spot for the 10-22.

In all likelihood, you don't have a 'bad' copy. Bad copies would manifest as misaligned or malfunctioning lenses, such as one that won't focus. It won't be a simple 'soft' lens most likely. Your lens is most likely fine.

To be fair though, that doesn't look as good as the 10-22, although I'm not sure how they are supposed to compare. The "Similar Threads" bar at the bottom would suggest this isn't the first thread of this kind for this lens. Are you suing a filter?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
liupublic
Goldmember
1,114 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Tempe AZ
     
Jul 08, 2012 00:32 |  #5

Looks like they are both shot through glass, bad filter or smog.


Still learning
Nikon D750, Sigma 24-105OS, 105mm 2.8g micro VR, Tamron 70-300VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Saint728
Goldmember
Avatar
2,892 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Honolulu Hawaii
     
Jul 08, 2012 01:01 |  #6

TBH, they both look crappy to me. Maybe go out and take some real world pictures and see how they come out.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick


Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III | 17-40mm f/4.0L | 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | 300mm f/4.0L IS
Click Here To See My Gear
Click here to see my Flickr (external link)
http://www.runryder.co​m/helicopter/gallery/9​019/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jorkata
Member
213 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jul 08, 2012 01:34 |  #7

LunaP wrote in post #14685882 (external link)
I know it's usually user error, but I am trying to figure out if I have a bad copy.

Sharpness seems identical on both.
The light on the two shots is different, though - the 10-22 shot is sunnier.

So, maybe your perceptions are misleading you :mrgreen:.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 08, 2012 02:56 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Apart from different exposure, they both look similar to me.

And don't be surprised that the 10-22 actually performs better than the 17-40 on crop, because it does.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
Avatar
297 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
     
Jul 08, 2012 04:17 |  #9

The image quality of the two lenses is nearly identical. Have a look http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3 (external link)


Flickr (external link) 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii
Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,479 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Jul 08, 2012 04:27 as a reply to  @ sloanbj's post |  #10

Yes this is my first thought too, a crappy cheap filter or smog.
Test it without filter or with a decent UV filter, maybe it's UV light or smog.
Also there is not much contrast, test it on a sunny day, I just re-ordered a 17-40.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 17-40 F4 L | 24-70 2.8 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 132
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jul 08, 2012 04:28 |  #11

99.9% Heat Haze + Smog...


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20DNewbie
"don't listen to me, I'm an idiot"
Avatar
2,732 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Massachusetts
     
Jul 08, 2012 04:37 |  #12

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14686457 (external link)
99.9% Heat Haze + Smog...

Thinking the exact same thing.


Christian.
Feedback: POTN - FM (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KnightRT
Member
134 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 08, 2012 06:36 |  #13

Until yesterday, I was shooting with a 40D and 10-22. I just moved to a 5D II and 17-40.

The 10-22 is a better lens. It's noticeably wider and the edge performance at 10mm is much better than the 17-40 at 17mm on the 5D II. The corners on the 17-40 at that focal don't sharpen up until f/8, or even f/11. The 10-22 was sharp across the frame by f/5.6.

I'm very tempted to sell the 17-40 and try a Tokina 16-28. That appears to be the best Canon-mount lens available at 16mm. The 1kg weight, lack of reach, and bulbous front element give me pause though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coldcuts113
Senior Member
Avatar
930 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: NY
     
Jul 08, 2012 07:06 |  #14

Saint728 wrote in post #14686131 (external link)
TBH, they both look crappy to me. Maybe go out and take some real world pictures and see how they come out.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Nikon D4, Sony RX10, Sony RX100.
Past Gear: (most recently) 5D3, L's, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
howiewu
Senior Member
Avatar
627 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jul 08, 2012 07:32 |  #15

I agree with others, both look crappy, but probably due to factors other than the lenses -- did you shoot through a glass window? There may be heat haze, smog, etc. too. If you want to do a meaningful test, you have to do so in a favorable conditions to eliminate other factors (e.g. take in a clear, cool day).


5DII, 70D
17-40mm f/4 USM L, 24-70mm f/4 IS USM L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L, 24mm f/3.5 TS-E L, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 100mm f/2.8 IS USM L, 300mm f/2.8 IS USM II L, 430 EX II, 270 EX II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC
Home Page: http://www.travelerath​ome.com (external link), Blog: http://travelerathome.​wordpress.com (external link)

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

7,904 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is 17-40mm L soft?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lindascott
707 guests, 251 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.