EF 17-40 L

Hi,

I am currently comtemplating buying the above lens to continue my 'L' collection.... (my wallet is currently running for cover!)

My question is for those who already have this lens - what is the distortion like at 17mm? I am looking to do landscapes and quite a few coastal shots, so I want a wide angle that has as little distortion as possible so I can get my horizons level.
I know I can always sort them in photoshop (as I have had to with my *horrible* vivitar 19-35) but since I also shoot film I need a lens offering the lowest distortion.

Thanks in advance.

*bump*

*another bump*

I know a lot of you have this lens - I am sure someone must have an idea... please....

I have the lens,. but have had little opportunity to use it!

Between work and bad weather ,. my time with my camera has plummeted since the 17-40 arrived

To my eyes thought the distortion is very exceptable...

....but on the other hand I would be a bad judge as I have NO expeorience with a lens of this type.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I have the lens,. but have had little opportunity to use it!

Between work and bad weather ,. my time with my camera has plummeted since the 17-40 arrived

To my eyes thought the distortion is very exceptable...

....but on the other hand I would be a bad judge as I have NO expeorience with a lens of this type.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

If you could, just aim the lens at the wall from straight on, and line up the top of the wall where it meets the ceiling to be parallel to the top of the frame, and snap a shot a 17mm. If the line is straight on the LCD zoomed in a bit, then there's no distortion. That answer would be all that is needed, I expect, and I'm curious, too.

My 20-35 has noticeable barrel distortion at 20, so single-point perspectives are not really something I'd shoot with it.

Rick "not needing a lot of precision" Denney

Hello,

I recently used this lens on a trip to europe. I found the distortion at 17mm to be acceptable and better than any previous wide angles I have used. There is obviously some distortion at 17 and even a bit at 20 but as far as I know ( just an amateur) this is common among most all wide angles. I found the effect pleasing in most cases and only a problem on a few shots. Both contrast and focus are superb. I have 3 lenses and I used the 17-40 most often. The other 2 are the ubiquitous 28-135 IS and the 70-200 F4.

I would give it high marks overall.

Good luck,

Darrin

Rick,

Well,. it aint STRAIGHT....
But the curve is not extreme either...

I was 12 feet away from the wall. At 28mm it was perfectly straight,.. looked good at 40mm too.


... wait there's more,.. a few more steps back form the wall... about 20 feet and the curve is MUCH less noticable.... granted the wall is now not wide enought to fill the width of the frame... (the room is long and narrow....)

Thanks Darrin, Rick and CDS, you help is really appreciated

Below is a link to an image with the distortion I am getting at the moment.

http://www.richardlind​ley.co.uk/wales/sundow​n_0009.jpg - taken at 19mm

As you can see it is quite bad and needed work in PS to sort it out, which I would rether not have to do (or at least do as much/often).

CDS, from your test (thanks a lot for doing it ) it sounds like the distortion is nowhere near as bad as this, is that correct?

Thanks again for your help

I have searched my 35mm archive and i found this one that are somewhat similar to yur picture.

This one is with the EF 17-40/4L mounted on my EOS 1N. Sorry if its dusty, but im not in the mood of some serious dut-cleaning

I measured your picture and found a 9 pixel distorsion. My picture (in same resolution) shows a 5 pixel distorsion. That means you have about 2% with your 19 (19-35 ??) and the EF 17-40 @ 17 has around 1%

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Thanks for that Jeppe, that is very helpful indeed! It is a nice shot too
Now I am pretty convinced that this is the lens for me. Half the distortion at a 2mm wider view. Nice
Would the fact that the 10D uses a smaller sensor mean that I would see even less distortion when shooting with it that I would with 35mm? My knowledge suggests it would but there is still a lot I need to learn!
Thanks again

Well, yes it should be since distorsion is usually more @ the end of the glass, and therefore the 10D's small sensor would take care of some of the distorsion. But when i have tested this it sees more like the distorsion is pretty even all over the glass.

10D + EF 17-40 @ 17/5.6

I found out that its pretty much the same 1%. As you can see @ the rooftop. Also dont worry about the blobs, its just raindrops on the window, not dust on the sensor

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

That is so much better than my current lens, I think my wallet is cowering behind the sofa now because I am going to have to use it soon

Thanks for your help Jeppe, nice one

What I found odd about my very quick test was that the "arc" described by the curavature of the ceiling line was in no way a constant angle,.. it was far more noticeable at the dead center of the frame. looking a little more like this, ^ ...than like a continuous curve.

Looking at the pictures above I see that is the same with all of the pics.

Anyway,. I would definatley agree that the curve is less noticaeable on the 17mm side of the 17-40mm than it is on the photo above taken with the 19mm.

I've just noticed that too.
But Panotools in PS7 have a much easier time of sorting out the distortion on the 17-40 that I did on my 19-35 - so my workflow is significantly reduced there
I'm talking like I have the lens already now - well I suppose I do, just my wallet doesn't know it yet...

Thanks for pointing that out

These two were shot with the EF 17-40 f/4L last week. The distortion is evident at 17mm but not as pronounced at 19mm. Hope this helps you out. I have some 17mm film shots at home and I will post them here when I get a chance.

19mm - 1/500 at f/8 and ISO 400

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

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