Best alternative to 17-40 F4L?

Hey all,

I'm looking to replace my 17-40 F4L with something similar as I'm not really impressed by it's performance. Build quality and focussing are great, but in the end I need something sharper. I probably don't have the best copy of the 17-40, since there is some distortion at f/4.0 that shouldn't be there.

Anyway, I would love to here some alternatives.

Thanks!

Since you're on crop body, I'd go with

1. Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
or
2. Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS

if you want a nice walk around lens. If you're looking for ultra wide angle lens, then

Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16

are you looking for a general walk around rather than strictly wide angle?

check out the Tamron 17-50, it's a stop faster than the 17-40L (f/2.8) and IMO will be sharper. Make sure to look at the non-VC model, i've heard the VC is a step down. I used one for a while before I bought my 24-70...

are you looking to go wider on the crop as well or keep the same focal length and just get sharper?

15-85 is a very sharp lens

How distortion is related to the aperture?

kf095 wrote in post #15053604
How distortion is related to the aperture?

wide open lenses tend not to be sharp and mainly noticeable in the corners. it snot distortion per se, but soft focus or CA or some other element not not being crisp.

as you can see here, but on a crop the worst areas of the frame are clipped off anyhow so the 17-40L on a crop should perform admirably.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

kf095 wrote in post #15053604
How distortion is related to the aperture?

I'm not talking about barrel distortion. I mean the image that it produces is somewhat distorted/ghosted. It's most pronounced at the left of the image; feels like the lens isn't correctly aligned.

Something like the Tamron 17-50 is what I'm looking for, but I heard it has awfully noisy AF..

2Live4 wrote in post #15053269
Since you're on crop body, I'd go with

1. Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

^I agree with this^

The Canon 17-55 or 15-85 are my choices for a crop body

Like others have mentioned, I would go with the 17-55. However, if you're looking for a true UWA lens, then I would take a look at the 10-22.

-Nick

nburwell wrote in post #15054359
Like others have mentioned, I would go with the 17-55. However, if you're looking for a true UWA lens, then I would take a look at the 10-22.

+1 ^^

An alternative suggestion for you. Instead of spending money on new glass, why not get a quote from Canon for the cost of microadjusting your camera to your 17-40.
I own a 17-40, it wasn't sharp straight out of the box, but after microadjustment it's really sharp. You might save a lot of money and find out what a good lens you already own.

I felt the same way as you with the 16-35 II and considered selling it, but after some advice from others i'll be holding onto it to it till I get my next body (Which will be a full frame body) as it's a whole new animal from what i'm told.

Thanks for all the replies guys, I've decidided to go for the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. What a great lens, an aperture of 2.8 AND stabilised is a whole new world for me. Such a difference from my 17-40L.

The reason I didn't go for the Canon 17-55 is because there is no real difference between the two other than handling being better on the Canon. Definately not worth the €350 price difference.