17-40 any good for MKIII?

waterrockets wrote in post #16005280
They can, but people who have no interest in the 5D3 may waste time clicking through based on the subject. Clear thread subjects are good etiquette, as everyone has their time limits.

Then you also draw in people like me to stir the pot for no good reason.

Based on these two posts, you have a lot of time to comment. I would simply close the thread if I was so concerned about my time and would not comment off topic. But....I agree with you, I will be more clear next time and will say it is for 5D mKIII Peace

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16005611
Based on these two posts, you have a lot of time to comment. I would simply close the thread if I was so concerned about my time and would not comment off topic. But....I agree with you, I will be more clear next time and will say it is for 5D mKIII Peace

Roger.

It's easier to stir the pot if I go into the thread though

I love my 17-40 on my 5DMKII!

http://500px.com/photo​/45292112

Nonnit wrote in post #16003365
I love my dots in the horizon!!!

I live in Iceland and my style is low and wide - ultrawide

5D MK2 + 17-40 @17mm and f8:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/85872455​58/

5D MK2 + 17-40 @ 17mm and f11:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/86016074​32/
Skírdagur by Nonnit, on Flickr

5D MK2 + 17-40 @ 17mm and f16:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/85984635​06/
Reyðarfjörður by Nonnit, on Flickr
Útsveit by Nonnit, on Flickr

are those even on earth?

Nonnit wrote in post #16003365
I love my dots in the horizon!!!

I live in Iceland and my style is low and wide - ultrawide

5D MK2 + 17-40 @ 17mm and f11:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/nonnit/86016074​32/
Skírdagur by Nonnit, on Flickr

IMO this shot shows the 'problem' with the 17-40. And if the shot looks good to you, then the 17-40 should be just fine.

My point being the very extreme corners are softish, even at f11, but if you have a great shot like this then who's looking at the extreme corners?

BTW the shot looks great to me, I'd hang it on my wall for sure and I have no problem with the 17-40!

I have owned and used both the 17-40 and 16-35 on my 5D MKIII. The 16-35 is a better lens but not by that much, it replaced my 17-40 because I needed f2.8. If you don't need the wide aperture the 17-40 will not disappoint. If you really want something sharper then buy a prime, if you want a zoom, for the money the 17-40 is a remarkably good buy.

Neil

Paulowen wrote in post #16001553
This lens has always surprised me with just how sharp it is as long as you use it between 5.6 and f16 it is fine - heck even at f22 the corners are not objectionable!
How do you spot diffraction anyway? Never seen it's effect myself just hear people talking about it?
I reckon its an urban myth

Here's another one from Iceland, same lens but at f13 for 10 seconds.

Shoot walls at F22 or higher and investigate 100% crops
Or look at how lab tests go from blablah 2500 to blablah 2400 (or even blablah 2300!!!) at F16.

How are the corners around 20-30mm stopped down?

In other words, do any of the 24-70's make a better landscape lens at 24-30mm than the 17-40 does?

I wonder how they all stack up for corner sharpness @ f11 @ 24mm - 17-40, 16-35II, 24-70II, 24-70f4, 24-105, Tamron 24-70.

17mm is quite often too wide for my tastes, but I do have need for a wider lens than my 35L at times.

17-40L is great on both the 5D2 before and the 5D3 I now have

kobeson wrote in post #16275640
How are the corners around 20-30mm stopped down?

In other words, do any of the 24-70's make a better landscape lens at 24-30mm than the 17-40 does?

I wonder how they all stack up for corner sharpness @ f11 @ 24mm - 17-40, 16-35II, 24-70II, 24-70f4, 24-105, Tamron 24-70.

17mm is quite often too wide for my tastes, but I do have need for a wider lens than my 35L at times.

My gut feel would be that the 24-70II would be the best of the list above, with something like the 24TSE being the absolute leader.

Stopped down though, I suspect the differences may not be that great:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

If you are not satisfied with the 17-40L's corners and sharpness forget about the 16-35 and buy primes.

sploo wrote in post #16278041
My gut feel would be that the 24-70II would be the best of the list above, with something like the 24TSE being the absolute leader.

Stopped down though, I suspect the differences may not be that great:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

Yeah I kinda would have thought similarly to what you say. Wish I owned both of those lenses, but I think at it's price, the 17-40 is pretty good value.

No doubt its a good lens - though I do wish canon would come up with something that can compete with this...

http://www.nikonusa.co​m …4-24mm-f%252F2.8g-ed.html

Personal opinion on the lens - Wish it was sharper, and wish it was 14-24 but its not, so I make do with what I have