canon 17-40 f4 L on a 5D Mark II

markta

markta

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,036
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone have this combo?

I've decided against saving for the 16-35 f2.8 for the tine being as I'll only be using the lens stopped down between f8 to 16.

I understand the lens is pretty sharp especially in the centre and fades a little in the corners...does the lens perform well in front of a 21MP sensor?

Any feedback will be very helpful. Will just about have enough dosh for this lens and the Canon TC-80N3 timer release, if feedback is positive.

Have tried Google etc and very little on there, apart from the fact that the 16-35 is only marginally sharper at most apertures and seems that the extra stop is what photographers are paying for.

Thanks in advance :-)
 
Got one on a 1DsII @16.7 mp and it's absolutely joyous. :)

I also shied away from the 16-35mm because I looked at the apertures I was likely to use it at and found little under f8.
 
Thanks for the reply...

I think I'll go ahead and buy...if the resolution sucks at 21MP I can always sell on. L lenses seem to hold their value pretty well...
 
Hi,

full frame test with 17-40L and 5D Mark II on Photozone.

Mike.
 
You're right, mainly what you're paying for with the 16-35 is f/2.8.

As a rough and ready rule, it seems that when you get lower than about f/4, the price shoots up out of all proportion, and so does the size and weight. There is very rarely any significant optical gain apart from aperture.

And don't forget Canon's DPP Raw processor can fix vignetting and distortion, and does a pretty good job of residual CA also.
 
I have this combo and have had no noticeable problems. I'm very happy with the lens AND the camera and the results I get from both.

I suffered some vignetting when using my Cokin filters, but I've since upgraded to Lee filters and not had any problems.

Hope this helps.:)
 
Sorry for hijacking, but would you take the 17-40 over the 24-105 on the 5DII?
 
drb5 said:
Sorry for hijacking, but would you take the 17-40 over the 24-105 on the 5DII?
Click to expand...

In the olden days before electricity and digital cameras, 24mm would have been about as wide as most folks would ever have and would have been more than good enough.

These days we've all gotten used to having affordable ultra wides and 24 just never feels enough for me. The 24-105 is a great workhorse lens and does loads very well but I'd really struggle without the 17-40 as well with the 5D.
 
drb5 said:
Sorry for hijacking, but would you take the 17-40 over the 24-105 on the 5DII?
Click to expand...

It would depend on the subject to be honest. I'm fortunate to have both and they are both very different creatures. For landscapes I'd take the 17-40mm anyday though the 24-105mm is capable of producing some good stuff it probably distorts more at 24mm than the 17-40mm. For people pics I'd take the 24-105mm because it's just so versatile and just about the perfect range. It's really a very, very good jack of all trades.

Hope that helps. :)
 
It does, though it points to the more expensive option. :D

We have a nephew on the way to us and video would be a benefit, as well as a crackin camera, but can't afford to spend too much cash.
 
drb5 said:
Sorry for hijacking, but would you take the 17-40 over the 24-105 on the 5DII?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't give up either of these lenses out of my kit. Both are excellent. I use the 24-105 for landscapes just as much as the 17-40 as the extra reach comes in handy sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top