Bitten by the 17-40L Bug

Because of my lack of lenses with full-frame capabilities, I finished an entire roll of film using the 70-200mm f/4L. Great lens and I love it on a full frame camera! However, shooting a variety of subjects for my first roll was kind of hard with 70mm being my lowest. I also own a 350D and I'm waiting for a bunch of financial aid and scholarships to roll in before I upgrade to the 5D, and the 17-40mm L has caught my eye. I mainly do landscapes and architecture along with some portraits, and I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the 24-70L anytime soon, so can anyone tell me what a wonderful decision the 17-40L would be? Was thinking of the 17-40L, Nifty Fifty. Or something else, as long as it's full frame compatible!

PS: I hate buying lenses, but I love it so much. I'm sure we're all in the same boat

A 17-40L would be fantastic. I used this lens solely as my wideangle for 1 year on a 20D. But since bought a Sigma 10-20, and then another year on, bought a 1DIII, so didn't think I had a need for the Sigma.

17-40 is sharp all round. Great colours. Good contrast. Will go nice on your future 5D

i had a soft copy of the 17-40, sold it and am now considering getting another hopefully sharper copy. I figure my 50mm and 35L covers low light situations.

I love my 17-40L - don't use it nearly enough, but when I do use it I get nice, crisply saturated photos.

Mark

Another consideration if planning on going FF is the Sigma 12~24mm EX DG. It covers FF and at 12mm is pretty crazy...

I have it and love it at 12mm, but I'm also considering getting the 17~40mm L so I can use filters, use it in a waterproof housing and have a dust/water resistant lens. Also I wonder if the 17~40mm is sharper in prints. The sigma does OK, but I'm on a sharpness kick lately and I've been wondering if the L is better.....

Wow, 12mm on a full frame... I think I remember seeing some samples of that somewhere on the forum. I'd probably be looking for the more zoom-y of the batch- looks like the 17-40mm may be the winner there. I owned the Sigma 17-70 and noticed I didn't really use it above 45mm or so...

madhatter, i have both the 17-40 and 70-200, while the 17-40 is a good lens, it does not have the pop/wow factor i get from the 7-2. just a warning, the 7-2 really sets your expectations high...

yeah, it all depends on what your other lenses are too...
I have a 24~70 (had the EX DG version before I could afford the L) so they go together very well....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

What a great lens. I'm glad I got it. Though, Popular Photography thinks it's a 17-44 in their latest issue; in the article about the guy who took 300 portraits.

Wow! Great images!
I think I had a mediocre copy of the Sigma 17-70 because few of the images I took had that "wow" factor. Colors always looked somewhat dull and washed out. I regretted selling my super sharp Tamron 28-75mm, but the range on my 350D wasn't really what I needed. 17-40 seems like it would be a good alternative since I can use it as a wide-ish on my 350d and a much better walkaround on the film than the 70-200. Wow... 70-200 as a walkaround... I'd better get something else before my next film assignment! =-O

Well I have just taken the plunge on one of these, so it will be two of us waiting!

my 17-40 hasnt left my xt since i picked it up. i absolutely love it.

Mcmadkat, make sure to post about how you like it! I'm seeing what I can scrape together... maybe a couple extra shifts, or take advantage of the fact my car payments are done

Highly enjoyable lens with exact colors.

Here is my 17-40