New walk around lens

My old lens the EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM was a lens that was almost always on my camera. A great daily lens with versatility, etc. Age has caught up with my lens (15 years) with an aperture failure.

I am looking for a new daily lens and am considering the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens. What are experiences and thoughts, both positive and negative from those that have used this lens? Finding my old lens was rarely used about 50mm and wanting a lower end, this seems like it could be a good fit. We all know that some perform better or worse than they look on paper.

All depends on what you shoot. I have the EF 17-40 f/4 L, and I have used it so rarely that I have thought of selling it. For me, a walk around has to encompass the FL ranges I most often use, and for me, that doesn't include shorter than 24. When I was using EF lenses, I used the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 despite the lower optical quality because I often shoot longer than 70 mm. 40 would be useless for me as a walk-around lens. But for others, it could be a completely different story.

I am somewhat concerned about the 40mm being too short. There does not seem to be a happy middle group with optical quality unless I want to buy the 2nd gen EF 27-70 F/2.8L and have the benefit of the 2.8. I can also look at the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens.

Tamron is announcing a 17-50 f/4 for full frame Sonys. Maybe Canon (or Tamron, Sigma) will bring an RF version.

paddler4 wrote in post #19556931
All depends on what you shoot. I have the EF 17-40 f/4 L, and I have used it so rarely that I have thought of selling it. For me, a walk around has to encompass the FL ranges I most often use, and for me, that doesn't include shorter than 24. When I was using EF lenses, I used the 24-105 instead of the 24-70 despite the lower optical quality because I often shoot longer than 70 mm. 40 would be useless for me as a walk-around lens. But for others, it could be a completely different story.

My experience is mostly the above.

What do you shoot?
With what (full frame or crop body)?
Would a larger aperture prime be more suitable?

bogleric wrote in post #19556942
.... I can also look at the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens.

I had two of those and wasn't happy with the IQ of either of them. Rented a Sigma 24-105MM F4 DG OS HSM Art and it replaced the Canons.

I have the 17-40. It's a good lens. I find 40 too short for walk around stuff outside. However, it's a great focal length for indoors.

I had the Sigma 24-105 for a while. It was a good FL but I found it very heavy.

What about just getting a prime.

I have thought about a prime for inside or controlled environments; however I am not sure what I would get for an outside walk around prime. Over the years I have become too dependent on zoom lenses.

bogleric wrote in post #19556838
My old lens the EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM was a lens that was almost always on my camera. A great daily lens with versatility, etc. Age has caught up with my lens (15 years) with an aperture failure.

I am looking for a new daily lens and am considering the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens. What are experiences and thoughts, both positive and negative from those that have used this lens? Finding my old lens was rarely used about 50mm and wanting a lower end, this seems like it could be a good fit. We all know that some perform better or worse than they look on paper.

24-70/105 is still the best walking around range there is. If I only had one lens, it would be one of those.

Have you ever worked with an ultrawide lens? In my experience, they are very hard to use. The field of view is so large and inclusive that it's hard to corral everything in the scene. Straight lines get a mind of their own as they head towards the edges.

I consider ultrawides as specialty lenses. Mine only comes out when I can't move my feet enough to make 24mm work. 16mm always ends up goofy looking to me. I'm sure someone here can explain the math on that.

View_Finder wrote in post #19557057
My experience is mostly the above.

What do you shoot?
With what (full frame or crop body)?
Would a larger aperture prime be more suitable?

I shoot all sorts of stuff, including candids of kids, landscapes, night photography, and "ruin porn"--detail of old buildings and machinery. But when I do landscapes, unlike many people, I very rarely go wider than 24 mm. My usual kit, if I'm walking around, is a 24-105 and maybe a 70-200. I also frequently carry a macro and occasionally a 100-400, but the 100-400 weighs so much that I have to have a good reason to lug it along. I literally can't remember the last time I packed the 17-40. I've occasionally used it for urban night photography, but not often.

I shoot full frame. Shot Canon 5D III & IV until recently, but I sold that and now use an R6 Mark II. (the AF is a big plus for kids.)

Re aperture: for most uses, I consider f/2.8 to be a waste of weight and money. Both my 24-105 and my 70-200 are f/4. I almost never want the narrower DOF, and with modern cameras, boosting ISO by one stop doesn't hurt much. When I bought my EF 70-200, going from f/4 to f/2.8 roughly doubled both weight and price. Not remotely worth it to me. I do have a few faster lenses--a nifty 50 f/1.8 and a macro f/2.8.

But again, it depends on what you do and your preferences.

paddler4 wrote in post #19557317
I shoot all sorts of stuff, including candids of kids, landscapes, night photography, and "ruin porn"--detail of old buildings and machinery. But when I do landscapes, unlike many people, I very rarely go wider than 24 mm. My usual kit, if I'm walking around, is a 24-105 and maybe a 70-200. I also frequently carry a macro and occasionally a 100-400, but the 100-400 weighs so much that I have to have a good reason to lug it along. I literally can't remember the last time I packed the 17-40. I've occasionally used it for urban night photography, but not often.

I shoot full frame. Shot Canon 5D III & IV until recently, but I sold that and now use an R6 Mark II. (the AF is a big plus for kids.)

Re aperture: for most uses, I consider f/2.8 to be a waste of weight and money. Both my 24-105 and my 70-200 are f/4. I almost never want the narrower DOF, and with modern cameras, boosting ISO by one stop doesn't hurt much. When I bought my EF 70-200, going from f/4 to f/2.8 roughly doubled both weight and price. Not remotely worth it to me. I do have a few faster lenses--a nifty 50 f/1.8 and a macro f/2.8.

But again, it depends on what you do and your preferences.

Thanks for the info! But my questions were supposed to be directed to the OP. Sorry for the confusion. Reading it now I can see why you thought it was for you.

dangermoney wrote in post #19557066
I had two of those and wasn't happy with the IQ of either of them. Rented a Sigma 24-105MM F4 DG OS HSM Art and it replaced the Canons.

Unless you need wider than 24, what he said.

I've been happy with my copy of the 17-40. I use it almost exclusively when I'm at motorsports events like the Rolex 24 or 12 Hours of Sebring when I'm roaming the paddock and garage areas. The wider end allows you to be quite close to the cars and still capture the entire car in frame.
I used it on my photographic tour of Antelope Canyon and Horseshoe Bend and it performed great allowing me to capture 5 shot brackets in producing HDR images. It's also good for me to take some up close shots of my orchids and bromeliads in bloom around the house.
I've read many opinions on image quality being not great, but I've got no problems with the images I produce and the used price on one of these makes it all the more attractive.
It's lightweight, relatively small, takes great pictures and not very expensive. The only limitations are reach (if you need it for what you're shooting), and its low light capabilities at f/4.

Like everyone else, I too shoot a significant variety of subjects. Everything from people, pets, a walk in the park, scenic shots after a storm, or to capture the stories present in the characteristics of a town main street or building. With my kids older and not kids any longer, many of the situations for longer shots like sports have become a thing of the past... for now.

My real answer may be two lenses instead of one. A prime and a zoom where the prime can cover up close people and the zoom a general walk around.