Canon 17-40L + Full Frame = Disappointing Results

SDK^

SDK^

Suspended / Banned
Messages
882
Edit My Images
No
I've been using my Canon 6D and 17-40L for a week now and the results are pretty disappointing.

1 : CA control from the middle to the edge of the frame is very poor.
2 : Sharpness from the middle to the edge of the frame is poor.

I shoot mostly at F8 and F11 and was expecting more from this lens. I have a Sigma 8-16mm used on Canon 20D and it’s much better, even at lower apertures. Although it’s not full frame so not a complete fair comparison.

CA can easily be fixed in Lightroom but sharpness is something else.
Is anyone else with this lens getting similar results?

This example shot shows the above - Untouched RAW shot, 17mm, 1/50, F11 and ISO 100.

Click image to see the full size.

14603346936_a8383f8ee3_o.jpg
 
I know we're looking at that top left section here but the distortion does look bad - can you post any shots showing the whole frame ?
 
The centre of the frame is fairly decent. Sharpness is okay and there is little CA.
 
It's hard to show you what my 17-40 looks like at those settings in that portion of the sensor because the largest sensor I have at the moment is a 1.3 crop 1DMk3.

I guess the very top left hand of mine would be roughly getting towards that portion of the sensor but on my 5D (or 35mm SLR) I don't recall it being as obvious as the example you've put up.

Is your 1st 17-40 ?

Perhaps there is somebody local that could let you test another copy ?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I'm expecting too much and shouldn't be viewing a 20mp image at 100%.
A quick auto tone & CA removal in LR and sharpen in PS brings improved results.

14626058452_c9a571458b_o.jpg
 
SDK^ said:
Perhaps I'm expecting too much and shouldn't be viewing a 20mp image at 100%.
A quick auto tone & CA removal in LR and sharpen in PS brings improved results.
Click to expand...

That is an improvement and yes CA will always be worse when pixpel peeping.

Barrel distortion is something that's apparent at any size. I think because your example contains well know cars and familiar looking houses - it's more obvious to notice distortion than you would with say, mountains, fields or clouds.
 
The 17-40 isn't particularly good IMO, it does suffer on FF, especially at the edges.
 
I have a good solution for you. The new 16-35mm f/4L IS; reasonable price from Panamoz or HDEW.

17-40 IMHO was frankly turd considering the L-status and price tag.
 
daugirdas said:
I have a good solution for you. The new 16-35mm f/4L IS; reasonable price from Panamoz or HDEW.

17-40 IMHO was frankly turd considering the L-status and price tag.
Click to expand...

^This.
16-35f4L wipes the floor with 17-40 and even 16-35 2.8.
 
daugirdas said:
I have a good solution for you. The new 16-35mm f/4L IS; reasonable price from Panamoz or HDEW.

17-40 IMHO was frankly turd considering the L-status and price tag.
Click to expand...
Nigi said:
^This.
16-35f4L wipes the floor with 17-40 and even 16-35 2.8.
Click to expand...

2 lenses in 2 different price brackets though and cost might be a factor to OP, I think for the price you can pick up 17-40s used they are a bit of a bargain, sure FF they need a bit of work at the edges but what doesn't get a bit of PP nowadays

if you purchased 2nd hand at a great price I would stick at it for a bit

https://www.flickr.com/groups/17-40ff/

thats a group for 17-40 on FF only, some corking shots in that group have a look at the EXIFs or ask what work was need to achieve the results
 
daugirdas said:
I have a good solution for you. The new 16-35mm f/4L IS; reasonable price from Panamoz or HDEW.

Nigi said:
^This.
16-35f4L wipes the floor with 17-40 and even 16-35 2.8.
Click to expand...

17-40 IMHO was frankly turd considering the L-status and price tag.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 gained a poor reputation. In some ways justified and in some ways misunderstood.

There were a lot of poor copies and people often bought them as a first affordable foray into L lenses.

People also stuck them on 1.6 crop cameras as it then offered a semi reasonable walkabout range but expected it to perform miracles at f4

A decent copy (took me 3 lenses to get one) is still a perfectly good lens when used for what it was designed to do at the correct aperture.

My 16-35 f2.8 was no better than my 17-40 f4 at anything smaller than f11. Sure f2.8 has advantages but not really for what a lot of people (including me) used the lens for.

If I was replacing my 17-40 f4 now (which I've no plans to do just yet) I'd certainly consider the 16-35 f4 though.
 
Thanks for the Flickr link :)

I've been using this lens for 9 years on a crop body and it is perfect. It's followed me all over the world and will continue to be my travel lens. The compact size and low weight are ideal for flights and carrying around.

I would love the new Canon 16-35 F4 IS but cannot justify the outlay for the benefit. I'd rather get a Sigma 35 F1.4 Art lens :woot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top