Any other lenses to consider, other than a Canon 17-40 L ??

68lbs

68lbs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
As per the title, just wondering if there are any alternative lenses to consider if thinking about a Canon 17-40 L. The f/4 aperture won't be a drawback as the lens would be for landscapes, though I have read about it being a bit soft towards the edges. Is this 'soft compared to other L lenses and nothing for the likes of me to worry about', or 'soft like butter and I need to worry'?

Seems a bargain Lens!
 
Joe T said:
There's a 17-55 2.8 IS but I dont know much about it. I think it isnt an L but that's not always such a worry.
Click to expand...

TBH, IS isn't necessary, and I don't think there's any real need for the larger aperture, so without knowing the price would rather pay for the best optic possible than 'features' I wouldn't need/use.
 
The 17-40L is a cracking lens at a great price. Great colour saturation and weather sealed too. The thing people overlook with the 17-40L is it focuses down to just a few inches - ideal for extreme close up stuff, so it makes a pretty good lens to keep on the camera.
 
I bought a 17-40 when I couldnt really afford one. I have never regretted it and you wont either
 
For that focal length on a 400D, I'd be going for a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a wonderfully sharp lens.
 
DigitalRelish said:
For that focal length on a 400D, I'd be going for a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a wonderfully sharp lens.
Click to expand...

I've no experience of this lens, but I did own the 17-85 EF-S and had the opportunity to test it side by side with the 17-40L. Barrel distortion was noticeably worse than the 17-40L. Whilst it was a nice crisp lens, the colour saturation was far better from the 17-40 too.
 
DigitalRelish said:
For that focal length on a 400D, I'd be going for a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a wonderfully sharp lens.
Click to expand...

Am interested as to why you feel the larger aperture and IS would be of benefit?
 
Just to add to other side of the argument I am not overly impressed with my 17-40, it isnt the amazing lens I thought it was going to be to be honest. I don't notice a vast difference between it and my 10-20 (not enough to make me think "oh I need to change lenses if I am shooting over 17mm") Compared to my 70-200 it is soft, but compared to my old kit lens it is sharp. It is a nice lens, and a great range for landscapes, but I wish I had gone for a 24-70 instead :(
 
I like mine, bought off here a few weeks back. Good colours and nice and sharp, been great for new baby photos without bothering the little fella too much and serves as a good compliment to the 24-105.
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Just to add to other side of the argument I am not overly impressed with my 17-40, it isnt the amazing lens I thought it was going to be to be honest. I don't notice a vast difference between it and my 10-20 (not enough to make me think "oh I need to change lenses if I am shooting over 17mm") Compared to my 70-200 it is soft, but compared to my old kit lens it is sharp. It is a nice lens, and a great range for landscapes, but I wish I had gone for a 24-70 instead :(
Click to expand...

You have to remember that it's one of the cheapest L series lenses Canon make. So yeah, it won't be as good as say a 24-70 or 24-105 which are considerably more expensive.

I have the 17-40. Good lens, great value.

I do want a 24-70 though, I too kinda wish I had gone for that instead...

However, it's good to have an ultra-wide, and I will probably get a 24-70 aswel.
 
CT said:
I've no experience of this lens, but I did own the 17-85 EF-S and had the opportunity to test it side by side with the 17-40L. Barrel distortion was noticeably worse than the 17-40L. Whilst it was a nice crisp lens, the colour saturation was far better from the 17-40 too.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the EF-S 17-85 just doesn't come anywhere near the EF-S 17-55 and I've used both.

I didn't notice any issues with distortion and that larger maximum aperture combined with the IS made it a fantastic walkaround lens.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Try this comparison of the EF-S 17-55 vs EF 17-40L, both at f/4 on a 30D.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's interesting. So when i move the mouse over the image it is showing the 17-40L shot? I can see the original image is sharper/clearer, but other than that, don't really know what I am looking at, or what I should be looking out for.

I've never looked this closely into a lens purchase before, but the time has come to think more long term. I am really surprised though after everything people say, that a non L is being recommended. I had read sharpness towards the edges suffered with the 17-40, but I would have thought this would be worse with a non L?

Looking ahead... I am looking to get the 17-40 to replace my sigma 10-20 and go full frame. I'd then keep the sigma 24-70 for the time being, but probably replace that with the canon L equivalent at a later date.

So is the 17-40L not the best option?

Goddammit, I find all this lens buying stuff so confusing and daunting.
 
68lbs said:
Looking ahead... I am looking to get the 17-40 to replace my sigma 10-20 and go full frame. I'd then keep the sigma 24-70 for the time being, but probably replace that with the canon L equivalent at a later date.

So is the 17-40L not the best option?
Click to expand...

Just a quick reminder, the 17-55 is an EF-s lens and can't be used on a full-frame cam.
 
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a cracking walkaround - had mine for a few days now, and used it for most of my shots on the London Meet yesterday. Highly recommended - but as Alan says - limited to crop sensor cameras only.
 
mr_pants said:
Just a quick reminder, the 17-55 is an EF-s lens and can't be used on a full-frame cam.
Click to expand...

Ah, great! That discounts that then.

Is there an easy way for me to know which lenses are FF compatible? I didn't think my sigma 24-70 was until the other day. I know the 10-20 isn't. But are there 'rules' or identifiers so that I know?

hold on... but markyh abouve has a 5D?
 
68lbs said:
Ah, great! That discounts that then.

Is there an easy way for me to know which lenses are FF compatible? I didn't think my sigma 24-70 was until the other day. I know the 10-20 isn't. But are there 'rules' or identifiers so that I know?

hold on... but markyh abouve has a 5D?
Click to expand...

And a 20D ;). Full-frame bodies can only use lenses with EF mounts; crop cameras can take EF and EF-S mounts.

For Sigma lenses, anything with a DC notifier is for crop bodies, and DG for full frame and crop bodies. For Tamron lenses, I seem to recall DII lenses are for crop bodies, DI for full frame too.
 
I think the 12-24mm, or a sharp 10-20mm is, by virtue of its design and intended use, a better wide angle, and don't forget the wide primes, such as the 14mm L. The 17-55 IS is probably the most versatile walkaround, though.
 
Mention of Tamron reminds me of the f/2.8-4 17-35mm.
 
marky_h said:
I think the 12-24mm, or a sharp 10-20mm is, by virtue of its design and intended use, a better wide angle, and don't forget the wide primes, such as the 14mm L. The 17-55 IS is probably the most versatile walkaround, though.
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to suss out though is, if I sell my 400D and go full frame where would I be wise spending money. I would use the siggy 24-70 to save more expense to start with, but would miss my 10-20. Obviously 10-20 is 16-32, so there 'appears' two options to me... 16-35L or 17-40L. Since the 16-35 is so expensive and I wouldn't need the wider aperture for landscapes, I was thinking the 17-40 would be a good choice. Not too pricey either, so I should be able to manage that and a body all at once in the new year. And then I reckon I could probably get away with using the 17-40 for pretty much all landscape work.

I have just discovered through other threads etc that the 16-35 suffers less from distortion, but it's one of those cases where I need to start somewhere and there's only so much money in the pot.

I dont want to miss any lenses that might be a better option, but do want to plan ahead and get something that i'll hopefully keep forever(ish) and not want to upgrade again in 6 months.

Looks like i'm here for the long haul now :D
 
if you are really going to go 135 then just forget about getting the 17-55 and go with the 17-40mm L for the now, you can always buy a 24-X type zoom after you get your 135 camera. The sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM should be out by then which will be greatly less expensive than the canon L verson.



from what I've read the 17-40 is actually the better lens over the 16-35 anyway
 
And the cheapo Tamron 17-35 is meant to be at least as good as the 17-40 at the same aperture, though is more lightly built.
 
If you're looking for a full frame alternative then you're in the same boat as me!

I'd be interested to know what you end up choosing.
 
68lbs said:
What I'm trying to suss out though is, if I sell my 400D and go full frame where would I be wise spending money. I would use the siggy 24-70 to save more expense to start with, but would miss my 10-20. Obviously 10-20 is 16-32, so there 'appears' two options to me... 16-35L or 17-40L. Since the 16-35 is so expensive and I wouldn't need the wider aperture for landscapes, I was thinking the 17-40 would be a good choice. Not too pricey either, so I should be able to manage that and a body all at once in the new year. And then I reckon I could probably get away with using the 17-40 for pretty much all landscape work.

I have just discovered through other threads etc that the 16-35 suffers less from distortion, but it's one of those cases where I need to start somewhere and there's only so much money in the pot.

I dont want to miss any lenses that might be a better option, but do want to plan ahead and get something that i'll hopefully keep forever(ish) and not want to upgrade again in 6 months.

Looks like i'm here for the long haul now :D
Click to expand...

Are you dismissing the 12-24mm? I don't think you'd be disappointed with the 17-40 L, in that case - I think I'd probably choose it in your situation :)...it's that little bit more versatile than the 16-35mm with that extra 5mm, and obviously a lot cheaper.
 
marky_h said:
Are you dismissing the 12-24mm? I don't think you'd be disappointed with the 17-40 L, in that case - I think I'd probably choose it in your situation :)...it's that little bit more versatile than the 16-35mm with that extra 5mm, and obviously a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

The Sigma 12-24 is FF compatible and is a pretty good lens in my experience. I had one of my shots taken using that lens printed at 20" x 30" after a little cropping to straighten the horizon and it looks pretty good. It's slower, optically, than the Canon 17-40, but is seriously W I D E. At 12mm, it's pretty easy to just stop down a little and shoot hyperfocal even when walking around (in half-decent light, at least).

Dammit! Now you've got me thinking about getting another one. Just when I thought I'd got over the whole wide-angle thing.
 
At least with the 12-24mm, it gives you the option of going that wide, if you want to use it. Hmmmm, a difficult choice.

I tried a Sigma 17-35mm on my 5D today. Shooting conditions weren't ideal, but what it produced wasn't bad.
 
I have a 17-40 and find it a great landscape lens on FF, if you don`t need the extra stop of light then go for it. It gives good results which you will be happy with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top