17-40 F4 L

I remember reading stuff a while back that said how sharp the Canon 17-40mm was. Now, it seems like everyday someone is talking about it being soft and selling it in favor of the Sigma 17-70mm. I want the highest IQ of the lenses and don't really like the limitation of the f4. I just mostly want some opinions of the 17-40L and what you all would do if you were in the market for a 17-xxmm lens.

The 17-40L is a great lens if f4 is fast enough for the work you do. I think it gets a bad rap sometimes due to it's short focal length and the fact that some folks just can't seem to understand that short lenses don't have the ability to resolve subjects at a distance like longer ones do. My 17-40L is sharp, but then I don't have any illusions of it being a telephoto glass... lol

I love mine (17-40l) but on a crop camera it is not wide enough......that said you can always rent one and give it a whirl

Mine's sharp as heck. I'm very pleased with how it performs and have no qualms in recommending it if you want a wide zoom with constant f/4

I don't mind the f/4 - I use the 24-70 and 135L for all my low light work, the only time I ever want 17mm is for landscapes where I don't drop below f/8 or so so I can live with the smaller aperture for this lens.

Ditto what the others have said. I actually started with the Sigma 17-70, but felt that it was a bit soft and swapped it out for the 17-40L. Since I shoot primarily landscapes, the F4 didn't matter much to me. I haven't looked back since. It all boils down to what you shoot. On a crop, 17 really isn't that wide. If you want to go wide and supplement what you already have, the EFS 10-22 would be a good choice. If you want to stay in the 17-XX range, the 17-40L or the Tamron 17-50 would be good options.

Add me as another very satisfied user. It's an excellent landscape lens on my FF 5D, and served me well when I had a crop camera, although it didn't have sufficient reach on the tele end to make it a convenient walkabout lens.

If you have the means, I'd recommend the 17~55IS. Fast, excellent IQ, perfect range, and it has IS. As far as lens speed, if you really need an available light lens, the better course is to get a prime lens.

I have both the 17-40 f/4 and 17-55 f/2.8. The 17-55 is slightly sharper if you look at 100% pixel views, but on an actual print there is not enough difference to be noticeable.

Since I got the 17-55 I hardly use the 17-40 because of the more useable zoom range, the faster maximum aperture and the image stabilization. The only reason I keep the 17-40 is because I need it for my film cameras and D60. Eventually I will realize I never use film any more and will replace the D60 with an EF-S camera for back up. When that happens the 17-40 will be looking for a new home.

If it is in your budget, and you do not need the lens for a non-EF-S camera, I would get the 17-55, not the 17-40.

My 17-40 is pretty fricking sharp. I don't know about anyone elses, but I'm happy with mine on the 5D. Not all that wide on a crop camera. If you are going to hang with the 20D, or 30D/40D, I would consider the 10-22mm if you want W I D E.

I have the 17-40, I though it was soft and wanted to get the 16-35 f/2.8L II but decided it wasn't a good idea as the 17-40 is sharp. 17mm wide open it's sharp, and get's sharper 'till f/9 and then the sharpness is just amazing.

One more to the satisified users list!

It's all a matter of personal opinion. I bought a used one and returned it. Everyone in the camera shop was amazed that I was returning such a "great lens," but it didn't seem to fit right to me. I'd suggest renting if possible.

Mine is also sharp, I love using it, it's sometime the only lens I go out with.

R

iv never found mine soft and suprised to hear others do.
Rob.

My 17-40 is sharp and I love it!!!!! If you need a faster lens go for the 16-35 2.8

Mine is very sharp and has incredible color and contrast. I’d never get rid of it. It’s a fantastic lens on my 5D.

Stump wrote in post #3851035
I remember reading stuff a while back that said how sharp the Canon 17-40mm was. Now, it seems like everyday someone is talking about it being soft and selling it in favor of the Sigma 17-70mm. I want the highest IQ of the lenses and don't really like the limitation of the f4. I just mostly want some opinions of the 17-40L and what you all would do if you were in the market for a 17-xxmm lens.

I've been where you are. This thread is why I sold my 17-40L. The 17-40L is a well-built lens with fabulous saturation. However, as you have noted, many of us have rec'd copies that are soft at f/4, and really don't sharpen up until f/5.6. It's for this reason I sold it for the 17-70. At f/4, the 17-70 was the sharper lens, but did not have the saturation (which is an easy fix in post-processing, of course). The combination of faster aperture, sharpness at f/4 and range (almost twice that of the 17-40) makes the 17-70 a most attractive option. I sold my 17-70 to get the new Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro (for constant aperture) and optically the two lenses are about the same. The 17-70 is the only lens I've sold that I miss - it's a wonderful outdoor walk-around.