Canon 17-40L (on a crop) - why?

The 17-40 is excellent for what I do using a crop body. It's well weighted, the color reproduction is great, and I love that it doesn't extend or rotate with focus. I take pics of a lot of jittery pets, and sometimes even a lens focusing is enough to ruin a shot. The effective reach is great indoors, when a 70-200 is far too long.

It's well built, holds value well and does exactly what I want it to do.

xhack wrote in post #11993627
~ ƒ4 is just one stop or one shutter speed slower than 2.8. In most circumstances, it's not a deal-breaker. Where you need a flash on ƒ4, you'd likely also need it at 2.8.

This is very true...to anyone doubting the usability of f/4 vs f/2.8, please do this: if you have a lens that can do f/2.8, put it in aperture priority at 2.8 and at 4 and see what the camera's shutter speeds are. Honestly, if one is hand-holdable, the other will be too, and if one needs a flash then the other will too. It's really not like at f/2.8 you're shooting 1/100 and f/4 you're at 1/5...

20DNewbie wrote in post #11994191
Because I can play with it in the rain/snow if I want to.

Seriously though, if it doesn't work for you fine but why bother starting a thread pissing and moaning about why others shouldn't like it?

What's next, someone starting a thread telling me how wrong I was to to spend $580 on a film camera last summer?

Well put!

Why are you ragging a lens when you have no experience with quality glass to begin with and seem to just be getting into this. This thread is useless

Scatterbrained wrote in post #11993937
First off, I often wonder myself and have engaged that debate with people before. Why get it when you can get a zoom intended for crops cameras? The lens is intended to have a wider field of view so will have optics that are shaped slightly differently than a smaller lens in the same FL range build specifically for crop cameras.
On a side note, I wouldn't judge a lens by charts alone. By chart shots alone my 50L is the weakest lens I own, but it renders light and colors in a way that no other lens I own can. My 15mm fisheye is technically
sharper than my 50 but the images out of the 50 are far more pleasing to look at. Often times they get no or marginal post processing, something I can't say about any of my other lenses. If I were to go by charts alone I never would have even bought the lens.

deanedward wrote in post #11993957
hmm... i guess the 17-40 still gives off very good colors and contrast despite its handicaps.

Big time +1 on that one. The 17-40 renders colors quite well and is fairly resistant to flare, two areas it trumps the 17-55/2.8 IS in my opinion.

Been using mine since '06 and its served my needs very well. IQ is Sharp wide open throughout the zoom range. f/4 hasn't hindered my usage. It's internal focusing and zoom are a big plus and handles flaring superbly. Color capture in photos is outstanding.
The focal is a negative but 17mm is quite fine on the crop sensor. IMO users get way too caught up in the f/2.8 factor.

Personally, I think the 17-40 works best on a 1.3 crop. I found it was a little to soft around the edges on my 5D2. On my 1D2N most of that soft area is cropped out.

On a 1.6 crop I'd probably use an EF-S 10-22, though.

TijmenDal wrote in post #11994142
An UWA lens isn't really intended for low-light/indoor conditions anyway.

That's a pretty closed-minded statement. I know plenty of people that use UWAs to shoot indoor events.

It is intended to be used any time you want to use that focal length. Nothing less.

Tsmith wrote in post #11994302
IMO users get way too caught up in the f/2.8 factor.

This. f/2.8 still kinda sucks in low light.

It's the difference between going from 1/8 to 1/15 or ISO 100 to ISO 200.

Not a big deal.

i have 17-40mm on my 7d and im happy with combo and photo came out brillant. nothing to say more.

Frankly I don't think the 17-40 makes a lot of sense on a crop body. It really is a FF lens. There are a lot of better options for the money listed above.

I liked it on my 1D and 1D2N.

There is only one decently build Canon lens in that focal range - 16-35L II, which cost twice as much and does not provide any significant improvement except faster aperture which has a limited use at those FL and applications that require DOF (main use of WAs).
For some reason Canon totally ignore build quality with EF-S lenses, they don't forget to charge premium price though.
And 3rd party lenses is always hit or miss, buy at your own risk, thing.

ZachOly wrote in post #11994350
This. f/2.8 still kinda sucks in low light.

It's the difference between going from 1/8 to 1/15 or ISO 100 to ISO 200.

Not a big deal.

It can be quite a big deal if you're already at ISO 6400 1/15 f/2.8 to get the shot.

m.shalaby wrote in post #11993589
honestly, some get it just because its an L - and then find out, while its a great lens, its not ideal for a crop and you see so many in the classifieds section.

its an ideal lens for FF users.

If that is the case then why is the EF-S 17-55 so popular on a crop?

Back to OP. Each to their own. Get the lens you want/need/can afford/can't afford and use it.