Food for thought on the 17-40

Just got another copy of the 17-40. Sold a good used 16-35mkI. The 17-40 is a UV11xx, my newest lens, fresh from the factory anyways, the 17-40 is sharper than my 16-35 was and the distortion seems much better. I am very impressed. The last two new lenses I've bought have been very high quality and I'm starting to think that buying used (for me) might not be the bargain I thought it was. Quality control at Canon, despite speckled contrary reports is high and I am definately not having any buyers remorse.
I'm sure if I would have bought the 16-35mkII I'd have been even happier but for a guy like me who shoots UW on a very limited basis (mostly landscapes, where f4 is not an issue), this lens makes perfect sense.
At 1/2 the price of the 16-35mkII I'd say it is a very sweet "bargain" L. I'm at work now but later this evening I will try to post some examples of the two ultrawides side by side.

thatkatmat wrote in post #4665017
Just got another copy of the 17-40. Sold a good used 16-35mkI. The 17-40 is a UV11xx, my newest lens, fresh from the factory anyways, the 17-40 is sharper than my 16-35 was and the distortion seems much better. I am very impressed. The last two new lenses I've bought have been very high quality and I'm starting to think that buying used (for me) might not be the bargain I thought it was. Quality control at Canon, despite speckled contrary reports is high and I am definately not having any buyers remorse.
I'm sure if I would have bought the 16-35mkII I'd have been even happier but for a guy like me who shoots UW on a very limited basis (mostly landscapes, where f4 is not an issue), this lens makes perfect sense.
At 1/2 the price of the 16-35mkII I'd say it is a very sweet "bargain" L. I'm at work now but later this evening I will try to post some examples of the two ultrawides side by side.

Mat -- i recently bought another 17-40L too .... just in case a 1.3 crop camera was in my future .

since i am not an UWA fan the range is perfect on the 1d3...for both a landscape lens and short walkaround.

and because i also have the 24-70L the 17-40L will mostly be used for landscapes. i already have f2.8 on the brick which makes it overkill on my landscape lens.

hey, it looks like you have been taking a walk on the "cheap" side .

ed rader

thatkatmat wrote in post #4665017
At 1/2 the price of the 16-35mkII I'd say it is a very sweet "bargain" L

That's for sure. Great lens. Great choice.

ed rader wrote in post #4665054
and because i also have the 24-70L the 17-40L will mostly be used for landscapes. i already have f2.8 on the brick which makes it overkill on my landscape lens.
hey, it looks like you have been taking a walk on the "cheap" side .
ed rader

Yeah, me too, the 24-70 takes care of the fast zoom for me and as you stated, 2.8 is a bit overkill for a seldom used UW.
As far as "cheap" goes, well, yeah, guess I have, I think I've settled on what FL's I use most and finding the right combonation of those FL's is what I've been focusing on....So far, I've made much better choices based on owning just about every quality lens Canon makes.
Sold my 16-35 and 50L's for a total of $2200, replaced them with the 17-40 and the 50/1.4, took the extra $1250 and bought accesories. (best decision I could have made IMHO) I feel like I didn't take any steps backwards at all.
In the end Ed, I just want quality gear that will do what I tell it to do and have been fortunate to have such a wide variety of choices.
I mean...Holy crap, I own a mkIII.....crazy, I'm fricken loving my hobby!!!

Congrats! The 17-40mm is a great lens that's stood the test of time.

Great choice. The 17-40 is a great lens and undeserving of the seemingly endless flak it receives here.

Gonna order (another) one soon! Thanks for the input

Yup, I've had 2 of these lenses, both plenty sharp. IMHO, this lens shines on the 5D for landscapes. Really a lot of fun.

Been thinking about this one myself instead of the 16-35L II mostly due to price but also due to how many great things I have heard about it. And already having the 24-70L makes me not really want to deal with another really heavy lens!

I really like this lens on my 1.6x crop for nature landscapes. It really nails the color of a scene.

ben_r_ wrote in post #4666512
Been thinking about this one myself instead of the 16-35L II mostly due to price but also due to how many great things I have heard about it. And already having the 24-70L makes me not really want to deal with another really heavy lens!

Really heavy? The 16-35mm lens is very light and compact.

I have a 17-40L and I am thinking of trading it in for a 16-35L 2,8 or a 14L mk2

ben_r_ wrote in post #4666512
Been thinking about this one myself instead of the 16-35L II mostly due to price but also due to how many great things I have heard about it. And already having the 24-70L makes me not really want to deal with another really heavy lens!

The 17-40L will also share the same filters and adapter rings as the 24-70L...another good benefit.

Well another fear of mine in buying used is how do you know why that person is really selling it. I've often wondered how many sales are because their copy wasn't a sharp one...

I love my 17-40mm. It's been fantastic. I love that it's 77mm and I love that it's half the price. I also love that from everything I've seen it beats the mI 16-35mm. But I've also been noticing I've been using the 15mm FE inside at times when I need a wide view just because it's f/2.8. I use these 2 lenses probably 75% of the time... So for me the f/2.8 aspect of the mII 16-35mm might win out. Usually I'm shooting landscapes stopped down where it doesn't matter, but I've noticed more and more I'm inside with low light, so it has me curious. If only I had the $800...

shadowcat wrote in post #4666736
I have a 17-40L and I am thinking of trading it in for a 16-35L 2,8 or a 14L mk2

I found the 17-40 to be sharper than the 16-35 (first version) unless you need the 2.8 I'd keep the 17-40...But that's me