17-40L on a crop

sorry if this has been asked before but i couldn't really find an answer one way or the other from the threads I've been looking through.

I am planning my equipment for a safari in February. On my last safari i had a 600d with a 100-400L and a 30d with a Sigma 18-250 OS. I'm looking to upgrade the second body and lens to a FF (either 5dII or 6d) and paired with a Sigma 70-200 OS.

I was thinking of getting a used 17-40L to use for panorama shots with the FF. Also I thought it might be useful as a short zoom for the 600d as well meaning I could cover the complete focal range from 17mm to 640mm equiv. with three lenses and two bodies. I would buy used and if i found i didn't have much use for it after the trip I'd consider selling again but i think it might be useful with the FF.

The alternative would be to take my Tokina 12-24 and EF 24-70 instead of the 17-40L but I'd have four lenses weighing a tonne.

So my question, besides the primary use as an ultra-wide on the FF how does the 17-40L perform as a short zoom on a crop?

thanks, as always, for you help and suggestions!

Owain Glyndwr wrote in post #15086667
So my question, besides the primary use as an ultra-wide on the FF how does the 17-40L perform as a short zoom on a crop?

Nicely. I did much the same thing that you propose - used it on a crop camera as a walk-around for about 6 months before moving to a FF body. No regrets with either phase.

Very good lens on Rebel.
I play with it on FF for panoramas stitching shots.
"Quick&dirty" kind of. Better something with less distortion.

kf095 wrote in post #15086705
Very good lens on Rebel.
I play with it on FF for panoramas stitching shots.
"Quick&dirty" kind of. Better something with less distortion.

this sounds like you don't rate it all that much for a ff? is there another lens you would recommend?

I see a lot of used ones for sale here so it is obviously not a lens people feel drawn to keep hold of.

I use my 17-40L a lot on my 7D - A nice lightweight walkabout landscape lens IMO.

Its not that its a bad lens on a crop body, but that if you were buying it only to use on a crop body there are more exciting alternatives, like the 17-55 2,8 IS which has some advantages.

The 17-40L is very nice on a crop. I found the barrel/distortion on FF a little too much, but on a crop it's acceptable. Very sharp.

Gary.

At one time, there were no very good options for standard zooms on crop and the 17-40 filled that niche very nicely. Today, there are a whole bunch of choices from canon and third parties that are better suited for this purpose. If you are only a crop shooter, I'd check out the ef-s options carefully first.

But, your plan is to multipurpose the 17-40 and that brings something new to the table. I'd say this is a pretty good idea, the economies of this make up for a lot. And, the 17-40 is still a very good lens despite there being other choices today...I say go for it.

Take a look at the 17-40 lens thread. It takes some great shots. As has been already said the 17-55 is the preferred Canon lens for a crop, but the 17-40 is no slouch and will serve you well on FF if/when you go that route.

An often overlooked lens in this category of super wide FF zoom is the Sigma 20-40 f2.8 EX DG. It was one of Sigma's pro quality EX lenses and mine is great as a crop standard zoom being constant 2.8 rather than the Canon's f4. I have not had the chance to try mine on an FF but it is great on my crop bodies. I got mine when there was not a lot of choices in crop 2.8 zooms. If you can find one I recommend one as a secondhand choice.

Alan

I used one on my 7D for a while but was unimpressed. Essentially the slow lens and high noise of the sensor conspire against one another. Unless you plan to migrate to ff in the near future, I would recommend the 17-55/2.8.

In terms of sharpness, I don't have many gripes. It was adequate but not stellar. The corners are a bit soft on a ff but that doesn't apply.

The 17-40L was my 1st L lens when I just started getting better optics over the kit lens. It is a good wide lens on the crop, and now on my 5D2, it works well too.

If I have to choose, it will be the 600D with the 100-400L (you said safari) and then a 24-105L with my FF . (17mm x 1.6 is about 28mm anyway).

Its served me extremely well on APS-C bodies since 2005.

I've used a 17-40 on a 50D and 7D. It was pretty sharp, but the f/4 doesn't make it very usable for indoors without a lot of help in lighting. I know the general recommendation is to get the 17-55, but if budget is an issue, the 17-40 is cheaper and still performs well.

I just came back from a trip to Ottawa, where I had my 50D and only the 17-40 with me. Both served me well, although I must admit that my usual travel lens is the 24-105--that is, when my 100-400 is not glued to the front of that camera… It all depends how you like to shoot.

Julius