Is the Canon 17-40mm f4L a bad move?

I have just purchased a 7d and intend to use my 24-105mm f4L on it for a walk around lens, which leaves a hole on my 5dii.
My main interests are landscape and portraits and a bit of street photography and I am a little drawn towards the 17-40mm f4 L mainly for the FF.
I have done my homework and read many reviews and can pick up a decent lens for around the £400.00 mark, which is about the amount I wish to spend, but there seems to be a lot of negativity around it, since the 16-35mm f2.8 L appeared.
I know all about the 2.8 against the f4 situation and it's a quite old design lens, but apart from the corner softness, at that price is it really that bad?
So my question is really, will the 17-40mm be that much of a let down if I purchase one in comparison to the 24-105mm.

The 17-40 on a full frame camera is a very good ultrawide. I think you will be happy with it. It wont be particularly exciting on the 7D but for landscape work on the full frame it does quite well.

It's not a bad lens by any means, provided you are aware of its limitations and aren't expecting it to do things it cannot, something that's true of all lenses, really. The corner softness is real, but stops being an issue as you close down. I use it for outdoor, daytime photography, primarily well above f/5.6, and haven't been disappointed. If I'm using it at f/4 it's because I want a shot of a subject that's closer at hand. I can live with the corners being a little muddy in these situations, personally. It's about 1% of my photography, if that.

I've not used the 24-105 but I wouldn't think the 17-40 is very different from a performance standpoint. Just look through the sample photos thread to get an idea - a lot of good photographers are making fine images with this lens.

All UWA lenses have quirks and limitations, and you have to spend a lot to avoid some of them.

I think the light weight of the 17-40 is an important factor as well.

I had the 17-40 and sold it to fund the 16-35. The improvement was noticeable to me.

Get it, keep in mind it's price and it's proven performance and you shouldn't be disappointed at all.

I reviewed the lens a couple months ago and despite its age, the 17-40 f4L is still an amazing lens even when compared to the newer 16-35mm f2.8L II. You can take a look at my review in the link below, there are also a ton of example photos in the article to help you make your decision.

Review of the Venerable Canon 17-40 F4L

The 17-40 is a very good UWA on my 13 MP 5dc. It's also a good walkaround on my 60d - which shares its sensor design with your 7d.

Be careful about its limitations though. Especially on the 60d, the corners are noticably soft until stopped down to f/7.1 and the range isn't too exciting to me. Soft corners are a problem for quite a few UWA lenses including the 16-35 f/2.8 according to the reviews I've seen.

On the 5d mk1 I don't notice the corners too much. The sensor is more foregiving (the pixels are bigger and don't require such a sharp lens) and in my shots I don't mind soft-ish corners most of the time.

The 17-40 is my go-to lens. I use the 17mm and 35mm settings a lot on the 5d, and when night falls I use the lens on the 60d at f/11. If you know its limitations and work with them, the lens will do very well.

17-40 cropped = no

17-40 FF = yes!

Thinking just for the 7D, the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is a better choice -- more range, wider aperture, IS, good optics, similar price but of course it's EF-S.

WithJustAClick wrote in post #17265243
I have just purchased a 7d and intend to use my 24-105mm f4L on it for a walk around lens, which leaves a hole on my 5dii.
My main interests are landscape and portraits and a bit of street photography and I am a little drawn towards the 17-40mm f4 L mainly for the FF.
I have done my homework and read many reviews and can pick up a decent lens for around the £400.00 mark, which is about the amount I wish to spend, but there seems to be a lot of negativity around it, since the 16-35mm f2.8 L appeared.
I know all about the 2.8 against the f4 situation and it's a quite old design lens, but apart from the corner softness, at that price is it really that bad?
So my question is really, will the 17-40mm be that much of a let down if I purchase one in comparison to the 24-105mm.

Heya,

I like the 17-40 more than the 24-105. The 17-40 is one of the few L-zooms that I would buy since it's commonly had for $500 these days, takes filters, is ultrawide, great color & contrast, has some weather sealing, and is pretty sharp. Is it distorted in the corners at it's wider focal lengths? Yes, all ultrawides have distortion. Does it get soft in the corners compared to it's center, a little yes, but it's not stopping people from using it to the point of throwing your hands in the air (look in the sample thread, the last thing you look for is a soft corner). F4 doesn't matter to me here, as I would be stopping down to F8 most likely or more. Will you miss F2.8 over F4? That's up to you. The 16-35 doesn't perform great at F2.8. It's noticeably not great at F2.8, which to me, for a $1k lens is not acceptable. It sharpens up when you stop it down. Well, in that case, it's really not a F2.8 lens for most use unless you're shooting the sky (in which case, save your money, get a Rokinon 14 F2.8 or something instead for that purpose). So the 17-40 wins in my book.

What wins harder than the 17-40, by being better priced and optically about as good, is the Tamron 17-35 (my opinion only).

Very best,

Gibbo wrote in post #17265587
17-40 cropped = no

17-40 FF = yes!

Bang! 7D? Get a 10-22.

17-40 on a 7D shows barely noticeable corner softness compared to a FF sensor. unless youre a pixel peeper

i love it on crop and FF. good walk around lens

I owned the 17-40L for about a year, and thought it was a good ultra wide angle on my 5D3 for the money. I upgraded to the 16-35 f/4L IS, which is a noticeable improvement all around, but it is also over twice the price (if you buy the 17-40L used).

If you want an ultra wide angle lens for your 5D2, the 17-40L is a cost effective solution. However, if you want it more as a general purpose walk around on that body, your 24-105L works better, IMO (unless, of course, you really like an UWA as a walk around).

Brian_R wrote in post #17267057
17-40 on a 7D shows barely noticeable corner softness compared to a FF sensor. unless youre a pixel peeper

i love it on crop and FF. good walk around lens

That's what I'll use on my 60D, if I can sell my 15-85.

Gibbo wrote in post #17265587
17-40 cropped = no

17-40 FF = yes!

This.
On FF it's pretty wide and such UWA is fun. If you're not a pixel-peeper you'll be happy with it. It's light and pretty cheap.
on crop it's something 1mm wider and 15mm shorter then regular 18-55 kit lens. Huge improvement in quality, but better get a 10-22 instead.