17-40 any good for MKIII?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15997054
Good one

just ribbing you man . can't wait to see your stuff from Iceland.

brettjrob wrote in post #15996717
This. But I'd emphasize the QC issue, and based on my experience, great copies are the exception rather than the rule. I had to return two to Amazon before scoring the third time, and that was a lot of hassle, especially as they became reluctant on my second return. However, the final copy I got is rather amazingly sharp in the corners from about f/5.6 down.

Seems to be luck of the draw really. I noticed there were generally three types of reviews of the 14mm (roughly in this order of frequency):

1. The lens is great - I see what the fuss is about
2. The lens is pretty disappointing - I don't see what the fuss is about
3. The lens is pretty disappointing - I don't see what the fuss is about. I then returned it for another copy, and now I see what the fuss is about

Agreed that you do need to stop it down to f5.6 for the best quality though. On mine, f4 is decent, but the vignetting at f2.8 is huge. Still, a dirt cheap, very sharp UWA that's great from f5.6 is good in my book - even if you do need to find a friendly retailer that will accept returns.

Here's a shot I got of the Skógafoss waterfall in Iceland toward the end of last year with a 5D Mark III and a 17-40mm.

I am not entirely happy with it but it illustrates the point that the 17-40mm on the Mark III is a decent enough combo for taking to Iceland.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …johnnywashngo/8​324902493/

I am happy with mine

I am very happy with the 17-40L on my 5dIII.

^^^^^ Beautiful shot!

I have a 5D3 and have tried a Tokina 11-16 (only at 15-16), Canon 16-35, 17-40. For landscapes, I think the 17-40 is a bit sharper than the others. I would love to use a 24 TS, but the cost is a limiting factor for such a specialized lens.
I am a crap manual focuser, so have never tried the Rok.

If you want a good lens that will get you good to great images for about $600, then I would go with the 17-40. (It's the reason I still have both this and the 16-35...I use that one for indoor shots)

I do not demand a lot from this tool
Speed of AF is not important because I will only use it for Landscapes and will typically have my camera on a tripod and will use Live View for precision focusing.
I have Lee filters for my 24-105 (77mm) and I see that 17-40 is also 77mm, so good. If this lens is equally sharp to my 24-105 at F/10-F/16, then...I am fine. Just need sharp photos at F/10 let's say.

Had the 17-40 bolted onto my 5D Mark III for pretty much the whole time I was in South America. Great lens for the price.

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

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15998029
I do not demand a lot from this tool
Speed of AF is not important because I will only use it for Landscapes and will typically have my camera on a tripod and will use Live View for precision focusing.
I have Lee filters for my 24-105 (77mm) and I see that 17-40 is also 77mm, so good. If this lens is equally sharp to my 24-105 at F/10-F/16, then...I am fine. Just need sharp photos at F/10 let's say.

The 17-40 gets a bad reputation because of it's poor performance wide open on FF and for some people, that is a legitimate concern. But, many of us plan to use this lens just for landscape type shooting and when you stop that thing down to f8 or smaller, it's every bit as good as the 16-35 and other more expensive lenses at comparable apertures.

If you know the lens is only going to be used for landscapes, the 17-40 is one of the best price/value lenses out there. Sounds like it's the perfect choice for you on your trip. Good luck and enjoy - I was there once and it's an amazing place to visit.

drchrisdvm2009 wrote in post #15998010
I am a crap manual focuser, so have never tried the Rok.

Me too, but the depth of field you get at 14mm is huge; even at f2.8, focus at 3m, and - in theory - everything from 1.27m to infinity will be in focus. Stop down to f11, and a 0.6m focussing distance will give you everything from 0.29m to infinity.

Even with my dodgy eyesight (and the fact the focussing marks on the Samyang aren't that accurate) I rarely have a problem (occasionally a test shot or a bit of Liveview chimping required).

Here's one I took in Iceland with the 17-40mm on a 5DII. F14 for 5 seconds - super sharp across the frame

Paulowen wrote in post #15999675
Here's one I took in Iceland with the 17-40mm on a 5DII. F14 for 5 seconds - super sharp across the frame

<TROLLING>At f14 I'd have expected it'd be super soft across the frame due to diffraction</TROLLING> (great shot BTW)

I have a hard time thinking of someone trying to shoot a landscape with a lens wide open. Isn't at that aperture when the dof is the thinnest? What I learned is that for landscape, you want the thickest dof, thus, a smaller aperture. I had the Rok 14, and it rocks. I have the 17-40, and also rocks. I even have the Canon 20/2.8 and is good, of course, not wide open for landscapes.

If you aren't going to shoot at f/2.8 a lot, the 17-40L is a good option. Sure, the 16-35 is a little better than the 17-40, but, no so much that you should always buy the 16-35 if you can afford it.

The 17-40 is smaller, lighter, and takes a 77mm filter (which matches my 70-200, 24-105, etc.) Stopped down it is great.

Another good lens UWA is a Samyang / Rokinon 14mm/2.8 prime for just $350. I just bought one and plan on bringing it instead of the 17-40 in certain situations.

the 17-40 is so good for the money on FF it practically sell itself, nuff said.