Your thoughts on the 17-40 4L?

From what I have read in the past about this lens, seems like opinions are all over the place; people either love it or hate it. So, I'm curious to know what folks here think about it.

Have you used the 17-40 4L? Did the somewhat slow aperture have any negative impact on your shooting? Was the lack of IS a major issue? Were you able to to capture sharp images under different lighting situations? Was it sharp/contrasty enough at 4.0, or did you have to stop down to 5.6 or f8 in order to get a decent image? Did the 17-40 feel like a cheap plastic kit lens?

snegron wrote in post #17947639
From what I have read in the past about this lens, seems like opinions are all over the place; people either love it or hate it. So, I'm curious to know what folks here think about it.

Have you used the 17-40 4L? Did the somewhat slow aperture have any negative impact on your shooting? Was the lack of IS a major issue? Were you able to to capture sharp images under different lighting situations? Was it sharp/contrasty enough at 4.0, or did you have to stop down to 5.6 or f8 in order to get a decent image? Did the 17-40 feel like a cheap plastic kit lens?

I've had my 17-40 for about 2 years. I love it. I think it is funny how lots of folks love the 10-22 on aps-c. I used a 10-22 on my 60D, and I agree, it is a great lens. Then I bought a 6D and moved to (primarily) full frame. When I added the 17-40, I was amazed. It is better in every IQ parameter except vignetting (welcome do FF) than the 10-22 on aps-c. Lots of people hate the 17-40. It is better on full frame than the 10-22 is on aps-c, and they hate it? But they love the inferior (still excellent) performance of the 10-22 on aps-c. Go figure.

Miss IS? No. Stop down? Only for DOF. Cheap plastic? I don't understand the question. Who gives a FFA what it feels like? My $75 18-55 STM feels like a cheap piece of plastic. It is optically superior to the 17-55 & 15-85 that cost 7 or 8 times as much. I wish my 3-pound 100-400L felt like a cheap piece of plastic and produced that kind of output. I sold my Σ70-200 OS because it didn't feel like a cheap piece of plastic. That damn thing was HEAVY!

Heya,

The 17-40L is a venerable lens. One of the best bang for buck lenses out there still. Sure, it was replaced with the superior 16-35 F4L IS. It's better in every way. But it's $800 used, and $1k new. While the 17-40L remains obtainable in very good condition for as little as $350~450 range. If you don't need the latest and greatest, the 17-40L is still a fantastic lens. No different than the day it was released, around 2003, so 13 years ago. Old lens by many standards. But still very, very relevant.

I actually bought the 17-40L this past year for the first time. So I got it "old" and "used." I wanted it for it's flare handling performance, good optics, construction, and low cost (for it's quality).

Speed of aperture is not something I care about. I used to use an 11-16 F2.8 zoom that was razor sharp wide open and had fast F2.8. It was sharper than the 17-40L. But, it handled flare poorly. Also, I often stopped it down for most of the uses, so the speed of the aperture was not very important, and the sharpness increases when stopping down, so that too became a non-issue. The difference became flare performance.

I do not need IS on something this wide. But that's my personal use. If I were doing video or handheld low light stuff, I might be more interested in IS.

I get plenty sharp images in all my uses, both at F4 and stopped down.

I find it to be plenty sharp at F4, with plenty of contrast. It sharpens up in the corners after stopping down. Overall good contrast & sharpness and color.

It's built like an L because it is an L, feels like an L too.

Overall, I'm still happy with the 17-40L. I would buy it again at the $370 price tag I got mine for. I would love to have a 16-35 F4L IS, but not at three times the price.

Here's some recent stuff I did with my 17-40L and an old 5Dc:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EoB6​nb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ESd3​ow

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EPSk​j7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FaCP​NE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EoX5​tB

Mal makes some good points about the 17-40. My only bone of contention with his assessment is that of desiring a 16-35. I wouldn't buy the 16-35 if it were the same price as the 17-40. Don't need IS this wide. Do need 35-40mm end. I use 20mm or so, and 35-40 a lot on this lens. Pick your poison.

Beautiful images! Thanks for sharing.

Bassat wrote in post #17947668
Mal makes some good points about the 17-40. My only bone of contention with his assessment is that of desiring a 16-35. I wouldn't buy the 16-35 if it were the same price as the 17-40. Don't need IS this wide. Do need 35-40mm end. I use 20mm or so, and 35-40 a lot on this lens. Pick your poison.

I'm in that undecided boat at this time. I've narrowed down my choices to either the 17-40 4L or the 16-35 4L. While 1mm doesn't make that much of a difference on the wide end, 5mm on the long does make a bit of a difference.

IS, IQ and build quality would be the main deciding factors for me. Today I had made up my mind about getting the less expensive 17-40, but as I was on my way to the store (literally) I had a change of heart. I started to consider IS and whether I truly need it or not.

While I have read that the newer 16-35 4L is optically superior and has IS, I don't know if the extra $300 (new) would justify these features.

snegron wrote in post #17947694
I'm in that undecided boat at this time. I've narrowed down my choices to either the 17-40 4L or the 16-35 4L. While 1mm doesn't make that much of a difference on the wide end, 5mm on the long does make a bit of a difference.

IS, IQ and build quality would be the main deciding factors for me. Today I had made up my mind about getting the less expensive 17-40, but as I was on my way to the store (literally) I had a change of heart. I started to consider IS and whether I truly need it or not.

While I have read that the newer 16-35 4L is optically superior and has IS, I don't know if the extra $300 (new) would justify these features.

I agree, the 5mm longer end is useful. If you need/want IS, you only have one choice. It has been my experience that, in the long run, it is cheaper to get what you want the first time. Settling for a 17-40 when you want a 16-35mm f/4L IS will just make the whole process more expensive. $300 is fairly insignificant over the life of a lens. The 17-40 works just fine for me. That has no bearing on how well it will work for you.

snegron wrote in post #17947694
I'm in that undecided boat at this time. I've narrowed down my choices to either the 17-40 4L or the 16-35 4L. While 1mm doesn't make that much of a difference on the wide end, 5mm on the long does make a bit of a difference.

IS, IQ and build quality would be the main deciding factors for me. Today I had made up my mind about getting the less expensive 17-40, but as I was on my way to the store (literally) I had a change of heart. I started to consider IS and whether I truly need it or not.

While I have read that the newer 16-35 4L is optically superior and has IS, I don't know if the extra $300 (new) would justify these features.

Actually 1mm at that wide of an ultrawide end does matter. More so, in my opinion, than the 5mm of the long end.

If you're buying a new lens, the 16-35 F4L IS is the way to go, hands down. There's no good reason to buy the 17-40L new.
If you're buying used, and want to get it as inexpensive as possible, a used 17-40L is the way to go.
It's pretty much this simple.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17947709
...
If you're buying a new lens, the 16-35 F4L IS is the way to go, hands down. There's no good reason to buy the 17-40L new.
If you're buying used, and want to get it as inexpensive as possible, a used 17-40L is the way to go.
It's pretty much this simple.
...

Yep. That's me. Cheap. Get the 16-35.

I use my 17-40 a lot! It is what I put on my 7D2 if I need 2 cameras with shooter zooms, like for an event where I am needing a good lens for a group of 4-8. And the 17-40 is useful mainly with a good flash indoors, but it is what it is, f4. I love it for outdoor landscapes. I used it today on my walk around my property.

Have you used the 17-40 4L?
Yes.

Did the somewhat slow aperture have any negative impact on your shooting?
Never in life. Besides, you don't buy wide angles for their bokeh.

Was the lack of IS a major issue?
No. I use a tripod, and when I didn't use one with this lens I didn't have a problem: wide angle lenses are quite forgiving.

Were you able to to capture sharp images under different lighting situations?
Practically always. Sometimes I had to jack up the ISO to 3200 and still got decent shots.

Was it sharp/contrasty enough at 4.0, or did you have to stop down to 5.6 or f8 in order to get a decent image?
Yes, it was. This lens is so sharp it'll cut ya.

Did the 17-40 feel like a cheap plastic kit lens?
You're kidding, right?

Mine at f4 is sharp in the middle soft in the corners on a 6D, but fine on a crop body. Never missed IS and after much deliberation probably wont replace it with the 16-35 f4.

snegron wrote in post #17947639
From what I have read in the past about this lens, seems like opinions are all over the place; people either love it or hate it. So, I'm curious to know what folks here think about it.

Have you used the 17-40 4L? Did the somewhat slow aperture have any negative impact on your shooting? Was the lack of IS a major issue? Were you able to to capture sharp images under different lighting situations? Was it sharp/contrasty enough at 4.0, or did you have to stop down to 5.6 or f8 in order to get a decent image? Did the 17-40 feel like a cheap plastic kit lens?

In January of 2014 I needed to buy a Wide Angle Zoom lens for a new 5D Mark III. Since this was the first leap into FF, I had two choices.
The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II or the smaller, lighter, half the cost 17-40 f/4 L.
One stop of light for double the price? Since most of my needs, and many others here, our Wide Angle work is stopped down anyway.
So I decided to grab the 17-40 f/4 L.
Used it a ton and liked the results.
A few months later, Canon introduced the 16-35 f/4 L IS........Image Stabilization.......
For over a year I kept that new third choice in the back of my mind..
The addition of IS would fit the need in low light when you don't have a tripod or on an old Basilica or Cathedral where tripods may not be allowed.
With an impromptu trip to Rome I knew it was time to go snag the new 16-35 f/4 L IS.
Being able to shoot razor sharp at 1/10 sec. Hand Held was worth the addition investment.
And yes the corners are sharper compared to the 17-40.
So what to do with the trusty small 17-40?
With the resale price dropping I still have the 17-40 f/4 L.
Why?
Having a back up is critical in my work.
It still produces great images.
And it is smaller and lighter in weight compared to the 16-35 f/4 L IS for the quick trips if you are not sure if you are going to need the Wide Angle or not. Being able to reduce the overall weight on the shoulder while walking all day is appreciated. Which is why is still have both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
If I had all three choices, 17-40 f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS or the 16-35 f/2.8 L Mark II to choose from today, I would certainly buy the 16-35 f/4 L IS......
If funds are an issue, I can certainly recommend the 17-40 f/4 L whole heartedly.

It's a great lens. If you don't need IS then just get it. No regrets.

After buying a 5D3 a few years ago, I added a 17-40L for my ultra wide angle needs, I got better results with the 5D3 + 17-40L than I did with my 7D + EFS 10-22mm. This may have had as much to do with the better sensor of the 5D3, but the results were such that I sold the 10-22mm, as I was regulating the 7D to pretty much just wildlife shooting with a telephoto lens.

Here are a couple of my favorite shots with the combo: