17-40mm f/4L USM?

I'm in need of a wide to medium lens. My "crappy" lenses (in my sig) are really showing their wear, and I am starting to sell my photos, and they are not worthy of selling stuff from.

I got a 50mm 1.8, had it for two days, and....... well...... it broke (more on that later) but it still seemed a little long for what I was shooting today. (Mountain Biking)

So, how is this lens? I have next to no money, and could probably swing it if I put it on the CC and ate ramin for the next 5 years. is it worth it? My local shop has one for 769.95. I'm all about supporting my LCS, but is this a fair price considering what you can get it online for? B&H is $90 less, plus shipping, waiting, etc

wow, thats expensive, i picked mine up at the local camera shop for 699. Check out the used ones in the "For Sale" section of the forums, that will be your best bet if you're worried about cost.

Agreed, a great lens and it can be had at a good deal in the for sale forum here.

Great lens.....I'm sure you can find a good used one.

Mark

If money is that tight, may consider going off canon......sigma or Tamron get good reviews. You would spend 1/2 as much and be able to get mac -n- cheese!!!

if you can't support your local store (because of cost) the next best thing is supporting a fellow photographer...you can do that by buying their used lenses. check this forum's buy/sell area as well as fredmiranda.com's (which is the busiest/fastest moving buy/sell forum for photography)

It's a really good lens, especially for Landscape and architecture.

BiikeMike,
Like others here I find its a great lens and worked great on both my DSLR's.

just to throw somthing else in the mix, how does it compare to the 24-105?

what about a lens that is 2.8 instead of f/4?

thanks for all the info

I bought my 17-40 from B&H and it wasn't that expensive. I live in VA. The 17-40 is a wonderful lens - clearly wide angle, even for the 10D. You will not get nearly as wide on the 24-105. I bought my 70-200L on my cc, but I can pay for it this month. I don't like putting anything for a hobby on a cc for long. If you really need it for paid work, then go for it. But if you are just having fun with it, reconsider. Your Quantaray might not be the best wide angle out there, but at least it works. And you have the Sigma, it's not bad either. But if you are asking is the 17-40 worth $700, the answer is yes. It will blow the other lenses away in color and sharpness. I can't imagine shooting landscapes without it.

The lens is very good.I bought mine some days ago.If money is a problem you could go for the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.Half money and good IQ.

The 17-40 is a very good lens. Check B&H Photo for prices. you'll love this lens for landscape, car shows and general walkaround photgraphy.

The 17-40mm worths every penny. Excellent colour performance and very sharp. Great feel of balance on a camera. Good focal length for wide pictures, and very good on 1.6x crop cameras (=28-64mm), pretty wide though not super wide. It's a much better bargain than its sibling 16-35mm if aperture is not a problem. If your shooting is inclined to the wide angle side, the 17-40mm is a wise choice.

thedoc wrote in post #2002415
The lens is very good.I bought mine some days ago.If money is a problem you could go for the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.Half money and good IQ.

i had the tamon and i agree it's a very good lens. plus it gives you f2.8 @ 17mm.

ed rader

Agreed, the 17-40L has got to be Canons best value for money, also it's a great lens.