soft 17-40mm F4L lens?

I have recently acquired a used Canon 17-40mm F4L lens...and it seems to be a little soft compared to my other lenses that I use on my Canon 30D bodies.
Is this typical when using this particular lens on a cropped sensor?
If not, what would Canon charge to recalibrate the lens?

It's not uncommon to get a 17-40L that's a bit soft at f/4, but it should sharpen quite nicely by f/5.6. Does it sharpen up by then? A trip to Canon can be an adventure - anywhere from a hundred to three hundred bucks.

Will run some more tests...shots were at F4. Will run some more tests.

Keep in mind this lens is engineered as an ultrawide angle lens for a full-frame camera. Using it on a crop sensor camera restricts its potential a bit. If you can shoot it at f/5.6 (not ideal for a walk-around lens) it should perform admirably. I had it once and sold it to get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Now that I have a full-frame sensor I'm planning to pick it up again (and of course, will now be selling the 18-50 ).

I have one of those little Siggys...pre macro version...very nice lens.

Hmm. Why did you pick up the 17-40L then?

Was going to get a 5D, but plans had changed after getting the lens and pricing 5D's. Also got to thinking back when I ran a Canon A2 and 24mm was plenty wide for me...so if I do wind up with a 5D, will probably stick with my 24mm f2.8 and the recent 28-135 usm lens I recently got.
Also have 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 canon primes, Tamron 90mm macro and a 100-400mm is canon L lens I keep permantly stuck on a second 30d body.

The 17-40L is known for being a lot sharper at 17mm than at 40mm. This is consistent with my copy, which I'm really happy with. At 17mm, it's frighteningly sharp - it gives my 200L a run for its money, which is INSANE. At 40mm, it's good, but certainly nowhere near as impressive as it is at 17mm.

Denton - no insult intended but I will asked the obvious: do you by any chance have an inexpensive filter on this lens right now?

No...

Oh by the way this thread is useless without pics. Post some samples.

perryg...nice lens list!
Do you have any qualms about switching prime lenses with the dust issues?
I have been giving some thought about picking up a 3rd 30D body and getting rid of the zooms...except for the 100-400 L glass.

Denton wrote in post #6932143
perryg...nice lens list!
Do you have any qualms about switching prime lenses with the dust issues?
I have been giving some thought about picking up a 3rd 30D body and getting rid of the zooms...except for the 100-400 L glass.

Thank you . The 35L is next, and then I'm done (yeah, right), though I might swap the 200L for a 135L.

What dust issues? I don't have issues with switching lenses since I'm used to shooting with primes and I plan well ahead. Dust is easy to clean. I'd sooner buy more bodies than more zoom glass. Each lens serves a purpose. 17-40 for landscapes. 85L for glamour/portraits. 400 for birds. 200 for candids, headshots, landscapes, and street.

I keep the 17-40L as a dedicated landscape lens because it lets me zoom in a bit to eliminate all vignetting from my GND filter holders.

When I first got my 17-40, there were times when I thought that it could be a little sharper... but then I realized that it had more to do with the wide FOV than anything else. Wide FOV = fewer pixels to resolve individual details and you're usually much further away from objects/subjects.

Denton, have you shot a lot of pictures under a wide variety of lighting conditions? If you still have problems in bright sunlight at a high shutter speed with a midrange aperture, then I'd say you may have some issues. But if it was done in a low contrast, dim environment, that's not a reliable test.

It's difficult to tell without some sample images.