quality on low end(17mm) of 17-40 F/4L?

I want,need a decent wide lens for the 30D(1.6crop...ugh) for landscapes(fall leaves) and some buildings etcetera.
Anybody out there using the above lens(canon ef 17-40 f/4L) that can comment on the quality at the 17mm end.
Also if you place it on a full frme camera say a 5d is there any issues with it on the low end at the edges?
Maybe I should go get a 5D<>
Positive and negatives appreciated.
Thanks in Advance.

on the wide end it has lots of problems, CA, Barrel distortion... it's lowest quality L lens btw.

Yes, I was wondering that.
Usually anything designed with that size of low 17mm somethings got to give-+

It does have a few problems at the 17 end but it's still a great lens, I use it as walk around most of the time. And once you go above 17mm the issues go away.

Barrel Distortion can be corrected with PhotoShop but the CA is a bit tricky.

I have got some great building shots with this and landscapes is what it does best.

But after saying all that I dont think the problems are that bad.

I own this lens and am very happy with it. I don't consider that it has lots of problems. I don't know a wide lens that won't have barrel distortion and this is easily corrected is necessary. CA hasn't been an issue for me. In IQ or functional terms I don't consider it as the lowest quality L lens and I've owned five. A very stable, consistent performer. Excellent general purpose lens at a fair price. Of course you can take portraits with it!

One of my favourite shooters uses it for his wide shots. It's always the shooter more than the lens.

I owned this lens (until CondyK forced it from me ) and it's a great lens - I never saw any problems at any range

The wider you go, the more you get distortions - but I never saw any with this lens on landscape shots.

I hear that this lens gives problems on a full frame at 17mm,but I have used this lens for 2 years on both 1.6 and 1.3 crop bodies and found no real problems at all,if fact I have never felt the need to correct anything with this lens,as far a low quality L's I think it is one of the best value L's out there,in a lot of cases it beats the 16-35L.

I've never noticed any problems with distortion or CA with my copy. Of all the shots I've taken I've only had ONE image that needed correction for distortion. It's a solid, sharp, workhorse wide-angle lens.

This bears absolutely no resemblance to my 17-40 whatsoever. I refrain from saying this statement is cr*p only because I know the odd person does seem to get a bad copy.

Mine is pretty sharp, even at 17mm, and edge sharpness is as good as center sharpness. I get no vignetting, no barrel distortion and no CA except in certain light and subject combinations. no lens is 100% perfect, but this lens comes close.

I use it as my walk-about lens, it is on the camera 95% of the time, and is exactly what i was looking for. I use it for mainly landscapes/ urban and also for portraits, just don't stand too close to the subject unless they like having prominent chins and noses.

It also is great indoors with a flash.

Sounds like you are considering upgrading to FF in the future otherwise I would recommend the Canon EF-S 10-22 (equivalent to 16-35 on full frame). The 17-40 will not really be as wide as you might want on a 1.6 crop camera.

I just got this lens and find it great on my crop body. I too have read that on FF there are some issues. With my 350D @ 17mm and f/5.6 I got some amazing landscapes.

Put me down amongst the ranks of those who think the above is total Spherical Objects.

This lens has rightly won more than one award. Any criticisms of performance at 17mm do not acknowledge the universal optical challenges that come with this territory - there are MANY w/a's (many of which are more expensive)that perform less well.

Can you point me at the L Quality Rankings you are quoting from? In as much as any read-across of different focal lengths is valid, I can nominate a fair few (starting with the 24-105) that must rank lower.

i have no idea where you got this from but that is 100% flat out wrong...

Of all my lenses it prodices the sharpest images at 17mm. Some vignetting on my 1Ds but CA no. Barrel distortion? Come on, it's a freakin' wide angle for under a grand. WTH do you want?

There is no perfect lens. There is ALWAYS a compromise.

My glass:

85 1.8
50 1.4
300 F4 IS
70-200 F4
Sigma fishy

My 17-40? Best lens I own. Always the crispest, clearest, best colour shots. My primes can't seem to beat it for outdoor beach portraiture that I do daily.

Did I get a "good copy" . No. I stop it down to F8 and use a polarizer in this insane sun near the equator. Love, love, love my 17-40 at 17.

But, since I have full frame I only shoot at 17 when the polarizer is off. I shoot in jpeg most of the day and can't be bothered to remove vignetting as my workflow has to be kept to a minimum.

With the polarizer on, 20mm. Yum.

I disagree that is has lots of problems. It's fine at the short end IMO.