Before I buy a 17-40

Sorry if this has been asked a hundred times before, but I'm considering a Canon 17-40 for a European trip next Fall. In previous outings to France and the UK, my 24-105 wasn't wide enough, but I'm concerned about vignetting and barrel distortion. I'd like to hear the thoughts from 17-40 owners.

Experience has taught me that all wide angle zoom lenses will suffer from vignetting and/or distortion. So you have to decide if you can live with that, if not, perhaps a prime would be better suited for you needs?

It has not stopped me from enjoying using wide angle zooms. I have owned the 10-22, 17-40 and currently have the 16-35. I pretty much never remove my wide angle lens when traveling to Europe, I'd say go for it!

If your 5DIII is the same as the 5DII in this respect - and I see reason to junk such a feature - then the 17-40 is recognised by the camera and Peripheral Ilumunination Correction can be applied in camera. Or you could do it in post~ in something like Lightroom. I believe there are plug-ins to correct barrel distortion.
Oh, and at 17mm, keep the lens horizontal; tilt up or down too much and you can get interesting effects, intended or otherwise.

I have owned the 17-40 L and found it to be good value. One of the biggest limiting factors I found was proper technique - a little experience with it can yield excellent results.
Your actual mileage may vary.

SamFrench wrote in post #16526943
I have owned the 17-40 L and found it to be good value. One of the biggest limiting factors I found was proper technique - a little experience with it can yield excellent results.
Your actual mileage may vary.

Yep!

Vignetting and distortion or no, I would not be without my 17-40. Especially in Europe:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/9​514214339/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/9​384826244/

Nice use of the lens.

What is the alternative? The 16-35 isn't going to be that much better. The 17mm TS-E is, but hardly a nice UWA 'walkaround'. I have taken it to Europe instead of the 17-40, but I also carry my (nice light) tripod with me everywhere.

With software correction the 17-40 isn't that bad (must be relatively easy to correct - no weird distortion) - Oh and it is certainly better at 24mm than the 24-105.

Buy the lens. It's the cheapest of the L series, and for it's quality I'm amazed it doesn't cost more. It also frequently goes on sale, especially in this time of the year. LR has it on its database and corrects the vignetting flawlessly. I never noticed any vignetting with it after applying the lens correction in LR; the only times I had vignetting was when it was caused by an external factor (i.e. filter holder), and no RAW processor is gonna be able to correct that.

Thank you everyone. I've place my order.

I'm going through the same process of deciding between a 16-35L or a 17-40L. My solution is that I rented the 16-35L last month for a trip to Zion NP. Next Wednesday a rented 17-40L will arrive for a trip to San Diego and a Christmas day hike in Zion NP.

For less than $200 I will have at least couple thousand exposures to compare plus my own up close and personal feel for each lens.

Good luck in making your decision.

17-40L is one lens I've been trying to get rid of as a portrait shooter, but I always re-fall in love with it when going on trips and in the city

Sin City Stan wrote in post #16529104
I'm going through the same process of deciding between a 16-35L or a 17-40L. My solution is that I rented the 16-35L last month for a trip to Zion NP. Next Wednesday a rented 17-40L will arrive for a trip to San Diego and a Christmas day hike in Zion NP.

For less than $200 I will have at least couple thousand exposures to compare plus my own up close and personal feel for each lens.

Good luck in making your decision.

Decided the 17-40L was the one for me. Ordered it yesterday. Without renting I'm inclined to believe I would have spent the 2X for the 16-35L.

I love the 17-40. the 16-35 for me was negligible IQ difference, and I didn't need 2.8. love how compact the 17-40 is. and the sharpness is insane for a "low end" L.

I used my new 17-40 on the weekend for some "night" photography and I couldn't be more pleased. The lens is sharp and the range for working in the city proved to be just what I was looking for. Thanks to all of those who commented.