I need crop cameras with 17-40 L opinions and photos.

KILLERCLOWN wrote in post #15582433
Hi, this shot was taken in Mexborough (south yorkshire) near the train station.....

Thanks for that Danny. It looked incredibly familiar, now I know why. I had a customer just across the road a few years ago and also have travelled through Mexborough station many times. Great shot.

Let me preface my comments with this - the 17-40 is not a bad lens on a crop body.

However, there are certainly many better choices that offer more for your money. Canon 15-85 has a much more flexible range, 4 stop IS, comparable IQ and a cheaper price tag. Similar can be said about the Canon 17-55 or the new Sigma 17-50 OS with the addition of a faster aperture.

The only time I'd recommend using a 17-40 as your standard zoom on a crop is if you have both a FF and a crop camera so the lens can save you some money by doing double duty as a UWA and standard zoom.

JohnB57 wrote in post #15582574
Thanks for that Danny. It looked incredibly familiar, now I know why. I had a customer just across the road a few years ago and also have travelled through Mexborough station many times. Great shot.

No problem, thanks for the comment

Just read that you can get it for 35% (that's what.. 250 USD?..) I would definitely go for it then.

btw, here is a recent pic from my 400D plus this lens:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Buy it. But only used. They don't hold their value and where are many of them for sale used.
Including mine.

Depends upon whether that's 35% off of the new price... or 35% of the new price. One is a 35% discount, the other is a 65% discount.

It also depends upon what the "new" price being referenced... Here in the U.S., the 17-40L is currently offered new on Amazon for $739, which Amazon claims to be a 47% discount off a $1400 list price for the lens. But, Canon's U.S. website currently shows an $839.99 list price, in which case the Amazon price works out to be more like a 12% discount.

Personally, I wouldn't buy the 17-40 for use on a crop camera. Not that it's a bad lens in any way... just that it's designed for full frame and there are others that are a better match for a crop sensor camera.

Instead I'd get one of the others that have been recommended... The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS would be tops and offers a bigger aperture, but is more expensive. The EF-S 15-85 IS is less money, more compact, a better match for a crop camera, nicely wider and longer, with every bit as good image quality. On a tighter budget the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS might be a good choice. The least expensive Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC rivals the Canon 17-55 for image quality, but lack stabilization (no big deal on these focal lengths) and doesn't have as fast AF.

Its just not the best option for a crop camera. Its not that its a bad lens, but it suffers in comparison to the 17-55 2.8 IS which is as sharp(or sharper), has IS and is one stop faster. The 17-40 is within shouting distance of the same price and the only thing is has is the L, which is mostly an ego thing.

kin2son wrote in post #15582056
Both Canon or Sigma 17-50/55 has faster aperture, longer range and IS to boost. Look into those.

17-40 has no place on crop.

I don't know about that. Fits fine on my crop bodies and works amazingly. The 17-40 has much better build then Canon 17-55, much more consistent than my Sigma equivalent (18-50 EX DC 2.8 Macro). If Canon build a better version of 17-55 I would be sold however for now I fear I would destroy the lens in some of the places I shoot.

The 17-40L is a good lens on any camera. It is just that there are better choices if you only have a crop camera. (Those other lens choices have the same or better IQ, a longer range, and a wider aperture.)

That is assuming you are buying new.

If you are getting a good deal (35% off fits that), then that is one thing. Get it, try it and if it works for what you need it for then keep the lens. If it does not work for you, you can probably sell it for what you paid and get a more appropriate lens.

Not sure if this is the best portrait...but this was taken with a 7D and 17-40 f/4L

patrick023 wrote in post #15584045
Not sure if this is the best portrait...but this was taken with a 7D and 17-40 f/4L

The perspective distortion is making him look horse faced.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15584063
The perspective distortion is making him look horse faced.

Let this be a lesson to everyone: short focal lengths make people look like horses.

MNUplander wrote in post #15582599
Let me preface my comments with this - the 17-40 is not a bad lens on a crop body.

However, there are certainly many better choices that offer more for your money. Canon 15-85 has a much more flexible range, 4 stop IS, comparable IQ and a cheaper price tag. Similar can be said about the Canon 17-55 or the new Sigma 17-50 OS with the addition of a faster aperture.

The only time I'd recommend using a 17-40 as your standard zoom on a crop is if you have both a FF and a crop camera so the lens can save you some money by doing double duty as a UWA and standard zoom.

^This

bent toe wrote in post #15582050
I'm thinking of buying it today.. i'm very close.
But i would still like to hear opinions from other crop users with the 17-40 L.

I'm planning on using as an all-round lense, this includes portraits, landscape, in-door, close-ups etc. Basically anything you can photograph.

I'm worried about the sharpness, the f/4 and if it will do as portraits.

at one time the 17-40L was THEE walkaround lens to own for 1.6 crop, but that was waaaay back in the days of the 10d which was before the day of the canon 17-55IS and similar lenses from sigma, tokina and tamron.

the 17-40L would be okay but there are better choices. the great thing about the 17-55IS is it's f2.8, sharper, and has IS. it's also sharp wide open and i always prefered to shoot the 17-40L stopped down at least partially to f4.5.

i know the need to own an L lens is great . but there are better choices.

isn't the 17-55/2.8 sort of like required equipment for croppers? 17-40 doesn't meet the minimum price requirement for the red ring.