For those looking at the 17-40

I want to show a few examples that highlight the strengths and weaknesses of this lens, at least in my opinion.

Weakness:
Soft Corners even at conservative apertures. Moderate DOF/Corner to Corner Landscapes suffer.

This was at f8, take a look at the branches in the corners. A poor application of this lens is landscape type photos with details such as branches or other fine-textured objects in the corners, unless you aren't too worried about it. You can stop down to f11, maybe even f16, but diffraction will set in, and realistically f8 at 17mm will generally get everything into focus.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Good info, thanks

Nice comparison. I don't think I'll be getting this. I don't like high barrel distortion. In the barbed wire fence shot the trees are leaning opposite directions on either side. The last one is not my style either with the curved ocean.

goldboughtrue wrote in post #13279717
Nice comparison. I don't think I'll be getting this. I don't like high barrel distortion. In the barbed wire fence shot the trees are leaning opposite directions on either side. The last one is not my style either with the curved ocean.

You probably know this already, but your 24-105 has terrible barrel distortion on the wide end. @24mm, the 17-40 would be much better in this regard.

thanks .... love the shell and flower...

timnosenzo wrote in post #13279742
You probably know this already, but your 24-105 has terrible barrel distortion on the wide end. @24mm, the 17-40 would be much better in this regard.

Agreed I notice it more on my 24-105L than the 17-40L. This is easily fixed with a single click in Photoshop with the lens profile as well.

timnosenzo wrote in post #13279742
You probably know this already, but your 24-105 has terrible barrel distortion on the wide end. @24mm, the 17-40 would be much better in this regard.

Thats kinda why I sold it about a year ago. Its correctable but you lose a little microcontrast when you have to correct in post.

timnosenzo wrote in post #13279742
You probably know this already, but your 24-105 has terrible barrel distortion on the wide end. @24mm, the 17-40 would be much better in this regard.

It might be worth noting, however, that the 17-40 has more barrel distortion at 17mm (~2.5%) than the 24-105 has at 24mm (1.8%), although as you said the 17-40 is much better at 24mm than the 24-105 (information courtesy of Photozone.de; information is from their APS-C reviews).

I feel your post processing makes the corner sharpness worse than it needs to be. Looks like you're applying a software ND graduated filter which especially hurts the branches in the images because of contrast addition due to the filter.

good info.. i just got this lens, lets me know what to look out for...

I'm not sure I'm getting this.

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #13279000
Weakness:
minimum focal distance

The minimum focal distance isn't the best....

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

This one was almost in the lens hood.

Thanks for posting these. The price alone has tempted me to buy this lens so many times.

kf095 wrote in post #13281208
I'm not sure I'm getting this.

This one was almost in the lens hood.

Cheers

True, they are very close to the lens, but at 17mm, or even 40mm, a close minimum focal distance doesn't always get a high magnification ratio.

It isn't the worst. Look at many 3rd party lenses and their MFD is even worse than the 17-40L. This is why the 17-40 is a good value. It may be a weakness compared to, say, the 24 TS-E, but for a fraction of the cost it is a pretty good lens!

JonK wrote in post #13280245
I feel your post processing makes the corner sharpness worse than it needs to be. Looks like you're applying a software ND graduated filter which especially hurts the branches in the images because of contrast addition due to the filter.

That one was actually a vignette. Just a cosmetic preference. The corners of the last picture, looking at the grains of sand, isn't the sharpest either. I think that one was f11 I believe.

Again, it isn't a "bad" lens, just be aware the "L" on the 17-40 doesn't mean the same thing as on the "L" on the 24 TS-E II, or the "zeiss" of the 21 ZE.

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #13282182
That one was actually a vignette. Just a cosmetic preference. The corners of the last picture, looking at the grains of sand, isn't the sharpest either. I think that one was f11 I believe.

Again, it isn't a "bad" lens, just be aware the "L" on the 17-40 doesn't mean the same thing as on the "L" on the 24 TS-E II, or the "zeiss" of the 21 ZE.

And look at the price difference in the two lenses you talk of to the 17-40L

Its like comparing a car to a bus.