17-40 F4L Slow to Focus?

Hey everyone…

I've had my 17-40 now for a couple of weeks (My first L lens) and I'm slightly concerned about the focussing.

It just seems slow, I have a 50mm F1.8 and that seems like the same speed, if not faster. I've never used an L lens before so I didn't know what to expect but I really expect it to be a lot better than a £80 piece of plastic.

Some pictures also don't seem as sharp as I'd like, there seems to be quite a bit of hazing around white objects in daylight which I'm also worried about. I don't know whether I'm pixel peeping too much, it's just me or that's just how this lens is so I'd just like the input of others that have experience with the above!

The body is a 50D by the way

Thanks in advance

I don't have a 17-40. But I've used "L" And that doesn't seem right, I'd contact canon

Yeh, i'm thinking the same, it's hard to do a proper test, the only way I could get close to testing side by side would be with a friends 40D, but it being a 40D throws in another variable. Suppose I could just try anyway :/

That sounds bad. I've had the 17-40L and it was like every other L I've ever owned/used...lightning fast AF.

I've owned 4 copies of the 17-40L over the years, and they have all focused very quickly, so sounds like yours has a bit of a problem.
also, your mention of haze makes me ask - do you have a cheaper uv filter on it? if so, get rid of it. if you must have a filter for protection, pay for a good quality one so that the glass comes close to matching your lens in its quality.
the cheap filter could also throw off the AF...

Hi guys, no filter on it, so that's not the issue…

Here's an example of what I mean, I believe the technical term is Chromatic Aberration, look at the outline of the guys T-Shirt and the lettering on the sign…

Definitely something not right there. Nothing at all looks sharp. Can you post the exif data so we can see what else may have been going on

My 17 40 focusses pretty quickly and is extremely sharp. I've never noticed any aberration at all

Heres a couple of examples

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56355379@N03/5​832197387/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56355379@N03/5​711173408/

I'm at work now so I'll put some more up later. Some are sharp and some just aren't...

Granted, the one I uploaded was a conversion from an unedited RAW file, but even still...

I got the lens second hand but barely used. Pretty sure it's under 2 years old. What's the warranty period on L lenses?

Warranty is only 1 year. You can check the age of the lens by looking at the date code on the back of the lens and comparing it with this chart

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …es/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx/

This is when the lens was manufactured but there shouldn't be too much of a gap between manufacture and sales for a high volume lens like the 17 40

Yeh, I checked when I first got it but I can't remember the date now!

I was expecting the warranty to be longer for a professional series Maybe I should get in contact with them anyway

Whoaaaa...that's definitely not normal. That looks like it came off a 5 year old cellphone!

I sold mine partially because I wasn't satisfied with the sharpness (especially in the corners), but STILL it looked like this:

@ 17 mm

Yeh, the picture I put up is really terrible, but I don't understand why it's so occasional...

Like I said, I'll upload some more later, because it has produced some sharp images, I'm just seriously confused!

I have emailed Canon and will see what they say I guess but this whole time I have been seriously underwhelmed with its performance compared to what I've read in the raving reviews!

To be honest (and this is just me)...the 17-40L is a little overrated. It's neither fast (f4 is ho-hum for a wide zoom) nor as sharp as you'd expect of an L lens. The build quality is excellent and the focus is superb (except in your copy, it seems), but optically, I don't think it's deserving of the L badge.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14695675
To be honest (and this is just me)...the 17-40L is a little overrated. It's neither fast (f4 is ho-hum for a wide zoom) nor as sharp as you'd expect of an L lens. The build quality is excellent and the focus is superb (except in your copy, it seems), but optically, I don't think it's deserving of the L badge.

Hmmm... Coming from using my 1.8 prime, it's really difficult to get used to the F4 aperture, I hated the idea of a prime when I first got it but now I kind of miss using it. I missed wide angle so much when I just had the 50 though!

I did consider the older 16-35 but I think it was quite a bit more expensive and people said it wasn't really as good. I guess I will just have to clench until Canon reply and go from there :/

propaintballa wrote in post #14695696
Hmmm... Coming from using my 1.8 prime, it's really difficult to get used to the F4 aperture, I hated the idea of a prime when I first got it but now I kind of miss using it. I missed wide angle so much when I just had the 50 though!

I did consider the older 16-35 but I think it was quite a bit more expensive and people said it wasn't really as good. I guess I will just have to clench until Canon reply and go from there :/

Yeah, definitely let us know what Canon says!

Yeah, the older 16-35L I is definitely not worth the money, and of course the new 16-35L II (which is a far superior lens to both the 16-35L I and the 17-40L) is a good chunk of change.

However...you have a crop body...why even shoot with a 17-40L? I think there are TONS of better options out there...17-55 2.8 IS, Tamron 17-50 VC USD (would be my #1 choice), Tokina 11-16 2.8 if you want to go REALLY wide, etc...all for as much or a little more money than your 17-40L and with better sharpness and all a full stop faster, with some of them offering IS.