Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

angryhampster wrote in post #6263560
I honestly don't have a single bad thing to say about it. I shoot with a 16-35 (mkI) at work from time to time, and f/2.8 is really the only benefit it offers. The 17-40 has a more standard (and cheaper) filter size, and it's easily lighter than my 24-70. Aside from my old 100f/2,it's also the fastest-focusing lens I've ever owned. Are you using a 5D/1D? They're the cameras that this lens needs -- it would be very restricting on a 1.6 crop.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply - yes I am using 1DMK3. I think I am leaning more towards
the 17-40 as it would be a lens just for enjoyment of landscapes etc, not an earning lens or at least not in the direct sense.

Cheers

Mark

sprite wrote in post #6263762
Hi,

Thanks for the reply - yes I am using 1DMK3. I think I am leaning more towards
the 17-40 as it would be a lens just for enjoyment of landscapes etc, not an earning lens or at least not in the direct sense.

Cheers

Mark

Believe me, both 17-40 and 16-35L are excellent for landscapes, i can't say one is better than another, i got 16-35 because i need f2.8 sometimes as i do like nightshots and some lowlights i can't use a tripod maybe, so it is always nice to have f2.8 just in case, and if you want to see amazing shots of landscapes from 16-35L [another photographers] just tell me, but i am sure it is mostly because the price of 16-35L and maybe the weight [which is nothing more than 17-40] people go with 17-40.
Good luck!

Just got the 17-40 L today, used but as new. Still getting used to it. My first shots with it on my 30D

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

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

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

Tareq wrote in post #6263999
Believe me, both 17-40 and 16-35L are excellent for landscapes, i can't say one is better than another, i got 16-35 because i need f2.8 sometimes as i do like nightshots and some lowlights i can't use a tripod maybe, so it is always nice to have f2.8 just in case, and if you want to see amazing shots of landscapes from 16-35L [another photographers] just tell me, but i am sure it is mostly because the price of 16-35L and maybe the weight [which is nothing more than 17-40] people go with 17-40.
Good luck!

Hi Tareq,

That's my dilemma - tempted by the 2.8 of the 16-35 for possible night shots or low light. Ho hum - I'll dither a bit more Lol.

Mark

aladyforty wrote in post #6264543
Just got the 17-40 L today, used but as new. Still getting used to it. My first shots with it on my 30D

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

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

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

Very nice - keep going.

Mark

Tsmith wrote in post #3770602
Super nice detail in that photo Mike.

An HDR with the Canon 17-40 f/4L at f/22

First of all Tsmith, as many here on the forum, I love your landscape work. Stunning and fabulous.

I have one question regarding the picture above and the technique used. You set the aperture to f22. Do you find that with this lens, the images are still sharp then at 100%? I have a 10-22 lens (but will be going for a 17-40 when FF camera arrives) and there the F22 is unusable for me. At F8, I get the best camera sharpness, at F13 the best picture sharpness considering the DOF. But the camera sharpness is a non-issue for you when using the 17-40, or am I mistaken?

Thank in advance for you reply and for sharing these beautiful pictures!

wem wrote in post #6267122
First of all Tsmith, as many here on the forum, I love your landscape work. Stunning and fabulous.

I have one question regarding the picture above and the technique used. You set the aperture to f22. Do you find that with this lens, the images are still sharp then at 100%? I have a 10-22 lens (but will be going for a 17-40 when FF camera arrives) and there the F22 is unusable for me. At F8, I get the best camera sharpness, at F13 the best picture sharpness considering the DOF. But the camera sharpness is a non-issue for you when using the 17-40, or am I mistaken?

Thank in advance for you reply and for sharing these beautiful pictures!

Thanks, thats much appreciated _

Yes there is some loss in corner sharpness f/22 but its nothing to keep from using it at this aperture. Usually I'd used something around f/11 at the most for this type shot but wanted the water to appear smooth rather than waving as it actually was. So even at f/22 I still used a 3 stop ND filter. Overall still the sharpness and clarity is fine at f/22.

John_TX wrote in post #6255622
Why would you even think of selling this lens with the 5D?!?

I guess I don't know if the extra 7mm is worth having a lens over. Seems to me the 24mm is wide enough...

debaire wrote in post #6267461
I guess I don't know if the extra 7mm is worth having a lens over. Seems to me the 24mm is wide enough...

Yeah, I think you're right. The 5D + 24-105L would be the dream combo for me. What I meant was, you've already got the 17-40L, so why not keep it?
I know I sure would. But then again, a true 24mm, F4, w/3-stop IS is much more useful.

I have a 17-40 in the mail from B&H. i dont wait.

I have my 1Ds3 coming next month, then even my 16-35L mk1 or 17-40 aren't be good enough, it needs something new, maybe EF 14-50 f2.8L USM

So many nice shots in here, this is making me want to sell my 10-20mm and buy this but I'm afraid I'll miss having an ultra-wide until I decide to go Full-Frame.

gixxer wrote in post #6270405
So many nice shots in here, this is making me want to sell my 10-20mm and buy this but I'm afraid I'll miss having an ultra-wide until I decide to go Full-Frame.

You will. 17-40 is very limiting on a 1.6 crop. If there's nothing wrong with your 10-20, why get rid of it?>


To contribute:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE