Canon 17-40mm L Thoughts?

robhooley167

robhooley167

Sir, my fingers are stuck together
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,158
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello
Im looking into getting a canon 17-40L and i was wondering what experiences people on here have had with them
Thanks
Rob
 
Crisp, sharp as a tack, great colour rendition.

I love mine on any of the 3 bodies I own.

Not much else I can say except get your wallet out, you won't regret it.

Just noticed you have a 50D, you might not get quite as wide angle as you'd like on that one :D
 
If you want a decent lens for the 50D in that range go for the 17-55 F/2.8. If you want something wide get something like a 10-20,10-22,11-16 etc.

Now the 17-40 would be good on your film camera, but a bit pricey for a film body on student loan money, no? :p
 
love mine to bits for landscape on my 5dmk2 and as a general walk about for my 1d mk2
if you dont need anything faster then go for it
 
17-40L is a brilliant super-wide on full frame; waste of money on a cropper.

Get EF-S lenses for wide stuff on a crop format camera. You get much more for your money. Canon 10-22, 15-85, 17-55 are the ones to go for.
 
Have to (gently) disagree that a waste of time on a cropper.

It has become my walk-a-round on my 7D.
Allways sharp, colours are beautiful, light, built like a tank and the ideal range for 'me'.

Just love it and everytime I try another lens it confirms to me what an excellent purchase it was.
 
Depends what you shoot Rob, i do mainly portraits and use a 24-105 on a crop body, i very rarely want anything wider so you might be fine. Maybe hire one before you buy then you will know if it is wide enough for your uses!

Good luck
 
Thanks for the input, I intend to upgrade to full frame 5D mk1 soon so the crop wouldn't be an issue. I mainly want it for landscapes and the like. So it's not an immediate update but it's definitely in the pipeline :) I'm just gauging peoples opinions to it :)
 
HoppyUK said:
17-40L is a brilliant super-wide on full frame; waste of money on a cropper..
Click to expand...

I have the 17-40 on my mkIV it gets me some good wide shots of the inside of football grounds for example..

Why is it a waste of money.. what should I ahve spent the same amount on instead?
 
KIPAX said:
I have the 17-40 on my mkIV it gets me some good wide shots of the inside of football grounds for example..

Why is it a waste of money.. what should I ahve spent the same amount on instead?
Click to expand...

OP has a 50D, and so has a choice of excellent EF-S lenses, as listed above. With far more range, or lower f/numbers, IS, and even a bit sharper. Win win. All really fantastic lenses. The 10-22 even has near-L build quality.

You have a 1D4, so you have no choice but the 17-40L ;) 1D series users are shortchanged on the wide lens front, not being able to use EF-S, but I guess that isn't the main reason you bought it.
 
HoppyUK said:
You have a 1D4, so you have no choice but the 17-40L ;) 1D series users are shortchanged on the wide lens front, not being able to use EF-S, but I guess that isn't the main reason you bought it.
Click to expand...

I still find your comment that I wasted my money a little strange?
 
Fantastic lens and you very rarely notice it being a few stops slower than the much pricier 16-35mm 2.8 version. I recently covered a charity fundraiser and got some stunning shots 6400 ISO, F4, 1/125 and 17mm. Sharp as anything!
 
Mine is a bit soft on the left hand side at 17mm. Not noticeable though in real world terms - I've got printed photos on my walls taken at 17mm f/4, the softness is only really noticeable on the computer. I think it's my fault though because I dropped it and the camera a while ago, and although it's never been perfect at the far edges, I don't remember it being as noticeable.

Zoomed in a little at any aperture and it's bloody sharp - rarely find the need to stop down at all .
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
I still find your comment that I wasted my money a little strange?
Click to expand...
I think Hoppy meant 1.6 cropped cameras. The point being that the APS-C based cameras are better served by cheaper EF-S lenses which cover the 17-24 range (17-55, 15-85).
 
arad85 said:
I think Hoppy meant 1.6 cropped cameras. The point being that the APS-C based cameras are better served by cheaper EF-S lenses which cover the 17-24 range (17-55, 15-85).
Click to expand...

That makes more sense :)

I just saw waste of money on cropped cameras and wondered what i should ahve got ... hoppy knows his stuff for sure which made me even more worried I had the wrong lens.
 
trencheel303 said:
Mine is a bit soft on the left hand side at 17mm. Not noticeable though in real world terms - I've got printed photos on my walls taken at 17mm f/4, the softness is only really noticeable on the computer. .
Click to expand...

same here but right and side.. well my right :)
 
thanks for the input guys, really appreciate it :) i ended up getting one from ebay for the rather tidy price of £400 in mint condition and so far dont regret it :) the crop factor isnt a major concern because im moving from the 50D to a 5D mk1 over the summer so it was more of an investment when the price was good :)
 
PCPhil said:
Have to (gently) disagree that a waste of time on a cropper.

It has become my walk-a-round on my 7D.
Allways sharp, colours are beautiful, light, built like a tank and the ideal range for 'me'.

Just love it and everytime I try another lens it confirms to me what an excellent purchase it was.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

I've never regretted buying mine and it's become my walkabout lens of choice.
 
It's a brilliant lens - wouldn't hesitate to recommend it
 
Just got mine. Stopped down to f5.6 on a 5D2, I'm very happy with it (f4 shows some softness in the corners).
 
HoppyUK said:
OP has a 50D, and so has a choice of excellent EF-S lenses, as listed above. With far more range, or lower f/numbers, IS, and even a bit sharper. Win win. All really fantastic lenses. The 10-22 even has near-L build quality.

You have a 1D4, so you have no choice but the 17-40L ;) 1D series users are shortchanged on the wide lens front, not being able to use EF-S, but I guess that isn't the main reason you bought it.
Click to expand...

I had a 10-22 and 17-40 in my possession for a while when I was transitioning from a 40D setup to my 5Dmk2. I can confirm the similarity of the build quality of the 10-22 and 17-40L. In fact, I would hazard to say that they actually used the same mouldings. Dimensionally the lens bodies were identical.

I would also echo what others have said, a 17-55 f/2.8 IS will outperform the 17-40 on a crop body at that fl range and the 10-22 is a better choice on crop for wide angle.
 
:plusone: from me as well.

It's my wide-angle on the 5DMKII and my walkabout lens on the 50D

Get one... you won't regret it! :)

Si
 
PCPhil said:
Have to (gently) disagree that a waste of time on a cropper.
Click to expand...

I agree, an L lens is only a waste if the widest end of the focal range isn't wide enough for the user.
I use a 24-105L and if I need to go wider I can either step back or change to my 10-22.
Until the day that we have a 10-XXX L, (maybe in 50 years or so), many of us at some point have to change lens, we just have to get on with it.
 
Last edited:
Love mine.

It's my 'landscape lens' so being slow isn't an issue as I rarely go anywhere near f4.

If I only had a 1.6 crop body then I probably would go with the EFS 17-55 2.8 as my general lens AND landscape lens but as I use my lenses on 1.3 crop bodies and FF bodies then EF-S are not much use.

On my 1D2 I'm relaxed about the 17-40 getting a good soaking too when I'm away up in the hills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top