Is the Canon 17-40 L lens a good all-rounder?

L

London Headshots

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,340
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
I currently have these lenses for my 450d:

50 1.8, 17-55 kit, 55-250 and 60 macro. All canon.

I'm loking to replace the 17-55 and the 17-40 seems like a good choice for the money.

I want something I can obviously keep if I upgrade to full frame, and my main work is street photography. Is this is a good compliment to my current lineup or is there something else I should consider?
 
Its a very good lens on a crop sensor body and an awesome lens on a full frame body. Its streets ahead of the kit lens 18-55 and its an L series lens so is built like a tank and offers excellent optical quality. I myself have one and love it.
 
A much loved lens, solid build, etc. but seems to lack the wow factor for some reason, at least for me. Can't really pinpoint why, nothing wrong with the images it produces but I never felt WOW like I do with other lenses.
 
I've had my fair share of wow out of mine :)

Back when i was using the 20D I did find the 17-40 too short to use as a walkabout lens but it has given me some great landscapes.
 
RobertP said:
I've had my fair share of wow out of mine :)

Back when i was using the 20D I did find the 17-40 too short to use as a walkabout lens but it has given me some great landscapes.
Click to expand...

And if one finds the 17-40 too short on a 1.6 crop camera, then it'll be too short on a FF cam. Please don't forget that this is coming from a not-too big fan of WA.
 
pxl8 said:
A much loved lens, solid build, etc. but seems to lack the wow factor for some reason, at least for me. Can't really pinpoint why, nothing wrong with the images it produces but I never felt WOW like I do with other lenses.
Click to expand...

This is the same with me :shrug:
 
My first L lens and thought it was great .. only got rid to help purchase the 24-70 ... i still miss 17mm here and there for inside football ground shots
 
I think it is a great WA lens and that it would fit well with your current line up.

I mainly use it for landscapes, but it is a good all round lens.
 
antc said:
Its a very good lens on a crop sensor body and an awesome lens on a full frame body. Its streets ahead of the kit lens 18-55 and its an L series lens so is built like a tank and offers excellent optical quality. I myself have one and love it.
Click to expand...
I agree with every word.
 
pxl8 said:
A much loved lens, solid build, etc. but seems to lack the wow factor for some reason, at least for me. Can't really pinpoint why, nothing wrong with the images it produces but I never felt WOW like I do with other lenses.
Click to expand...

Care to name a lens that has the WOW factor? That's essentially what I'm looking for. Something that is just going to blow me away.
 
I have been VERY impressed, yes even said wow a couple of times, with the 17-55 IS. While it is not L glass, the IQ is excellent as it its light capability as it is f2.8 all the way. The only downside is it is an EF-S lens, so won't be compatible with FF. Sure you could easily sell it though. It is also IS, which will help, whereas the 17-40 doesn't have Imagine Stabilisation.

Many also totally rate the 24-105L.
 
Great lens and good value for money. :)
 
dont want to butt in but i think its relevant. What would you suggest to replace the kit lens In terms of walkaround lens that has decent reach and is fast? Just curious if not the 17-40 , what else?
 
I moved on to the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 from the kit lens but kept the kit lens to cover the wider angles. The Tamron was a great lens. Mine was sharp wide open.
 
16-35 f2.8?

I have the 17-40 and find it to be absolutely great, I am predominately a Prime man myself, but use this on either a 5d fabulous results and very sharp, or a 1d11n or a 1dmk111 not much difference really on either body but I do prfer the colours from the 5d, I am not really into landscapes I prfer wildlife and you have top see some of the results from Andy Rouse using this lens for wildlife, not ideal but in the hands of the master it is superb:thumbs:



Dom_Cabarete said:
dont want to butt in but i think its relevant. What would you suggest to replace the kit lens In terms of walkaround lens that has decent reach and is fast? Just curious if not the 17-40 , what else?
Click to expand...
 
Dom_Cabarete said:
dont want to butt in but i think its relevant. What would you suggest to replace the kit lens In terms of walkaround lens that has decent reach and is fast? Just curious if not the 17-40 , what else?
Click to expand...
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
 
Not sure if this will fail on the decent reach criteria, but have been considering replacing my kit lens with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di ll LD which has a very good write up in this months edition of photoplus. I had originally thought about the 17-40L but thought that extra couple of stops would be more of a benefit than the "L" build..... However, jury's still out and I'm still ummminng and ahhing.
 
leave1 said:
Care to name a lens that has the WOW factor? That's essentially what I'm looking for. Something that is just going to blow me away.
Click to expand...
And be a replacement for the it lens too? Tricky. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a great lens, and the ability to take handheld pictures in the dark (thanks to the combination of wide angle, f/2.8 and IS) is mightily impressive. But the lens itself doesn't really have much of a WOW. Not like the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L II or the Nikon 14-24mm.
 
yoby said:
... have been considering replacing my kit lens with the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di ll LD ... I had originally thought about the 17-40L but thought that extra couple of stops would be more of a benefit than the "L" build....
Click to expand...
One extra stop, you mean. Does that affect your thinking?
 
From my experience the kit lens is nowhere near as bad as some people seem to think. If you want some benefit from the upgrade then wider max aperture like f2.8 and IS (less important) are the things to go for.
 
swag72 said:
I have been VERY impressed, yes even said wow a couple of times, with the 17-55 IS. While it is not L glass, the IQ is excellent as it its light capability as it is f2.8 all the way. The only downside is it is an EF-S lens, so won't be compatible with FF. Sure you could easily sell it though. It is also IS, which will help, whereas the 17-40 doesn't have Imagine Stabilisation.
Click to expand...

Well put. Canon made this lens for you, leave1 :) I have it. Apart from not being quite L build quality, it beats the 17-40mm in every single aspect.

Why do you want to go to full-frame? It has potentially higher image quality that few people will every get to exploit, and can deliver very, very shallow depth of field should you ever want that, but otherwise it's a heck of a lot of money for a much bigger, heavier camera. Money that spent on another lens or three, or countless other ways, will do far more to expand your picture opportunities.

Good luck,

Richard.
 
I loved the EF-S 17-55. If Canon made a full frame version, I'd jump on it. Instead, I'm having to make do with a 24-70L ;)
 
I got to the shop, had a go with it, and I'm not sure it's what I'm after.

Now I have another question if anyone can help. They had a second hand Sigma 18-50 EX(non macro) going for 200 quid. I'm hearing mixed opinions on this lens, is it a decent replacement for my kit lens?
 
Have you tried the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? You could always sell it if/when you go full frame. I don't think you'll find a better zoom in that range on a cropped body. It's not cheap, but you'd get your money back when you come to sell it on.
 
well i was thinking of the siggy 24-70 f2.8 which should fit well between the 10-20 and the 70-200. Ill be getting into primes but its not the greatest thing for walkaround.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Have you tried the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? You could always sell it if/when you go full frame. I don't think you'll find a better zoom in that range on a cropped body. It's not cheap, but you'd get your money back when you come to sell it on.
Click to expand...

Nah, I absolutely do not have the budget to stretch to that at the moment. It's a lot of money.

I'm hoping the Sigma I mentioned is going ot cut it, it's under my budget which would make me very happy lol
 
leave1 said:
Care to name a lens that has the WOW factor? That's essentially what I'm looking for. Something that is just going to blow me away.
Click to expand...

With the same focal length I'm not sure I can. I think it's part of the problem for me.

But losing the wide end the 24-70L certainly has the wow factor, so does the 135L but that's not exactly a replacement for the kit lens ;)
 
leave1 said:
Nah, I absolutely do not have the budget to stretch to that at the moment. It's a lot of money.

I'm hoping the Sigma I mentioned is going ot cut it, it's under my budget which would make me very happy lol
Click to expand...

Go for it leave1 :) Sigma is a good lens and you can't complain at that price. But try this test first, just in case it's been traded in as a duff copy, or been dropped or whatever.

Stick it on your camera at 10mm and f/2.8, say ISO 400 to get a guaranteed shake-free high shutter speed. A bit of noise won't hurt. Point it over the road at a reasonably distant subject to minimise focus inaccuracies, a shop sign/number plate is good, and focus carefully. Set exposure, lock everything on manual. Shoot four pics in quick succession so the light doesn't change, with the target subject in all four corners of the frame.

Take your card and pop it into one of those processing booth things, select the target subject in each frame, whack it up to max magnification and print them all out. A 6x4in section is perfect.

What you are looking for is four corner images that are EQUAL in sharpness. In truth, they probably won't look that great but this is a severe test and it's equality you're after, not ultimate sharpness. You will probably find that the four images are not quite the same, they rarely are even on the best lenses so don't panic unduly, but if one or more corners is obviously significantly worse than the others, the lens has been put together off-centre (the most common manufacturing fault) or has been knocked off-centre.

I say again that this is a severe test, pushing the lens very hard at its weakest settings. So why not also take another shot to see what it really can do. Set a mid-range zoom focal length, f/8, low ISO. Print that one 15x10in and prepare for a big smile :D

Cheers,

Richard.

Edited to add, if a lens is really duff, you don't even have to print the images out - just blow them up to max mag on the LCD screen on the camera and you'll be able to see if one corner shot is way different ;)
 
I've heard of a fair bit of quality issues with Sigma so buy new or test before buying imo.

I'm considering swapping my 10-22 for a 17-40 in preparation for a FF swap. I love the 10-22, great for landscapes and architecture.
 
The 17-40 was my second L and the one I bought as my general purpose lens. IF loved it, produced great work with it, bu ultimately found I was either struggling for reach or needed just a bit more wideangle.
Ended up buying a dedicated wide lens and carrying my smaller 28-105 around.
 
HoppyUK said:
Go for it leave1 :) Sigma is a good lens and you can't complain at that price. But try this test first, just in case it's been traded in as a duff copy, or been dropped or whatever.

Stick it on your camera at 10mm and f/2.8, say ISO 400 to get a guaranteed shake-free high shutter speed. A bit of noise won't hurt. Point it over the road at a reasonably distant subject to minimise focus inaccuracies, a shop sign/number plate is good, and focus carefully. Set exposure, lock everything on manual. Shoot four pics in quick succession so the light doesn't change, with the target subject in all four corners of the frame.

Take your card and pop it into one of those processing booth things, select the target subject in each frame, whack it up to max magnification and print them all out. A 6x4in section is perfect.

What you are looking for is four corner images that are EQUAL in sharpness. In truth, they probably won't look that great but this is a severe test and it's equality you're after, not ultimate sharpness. You will probably find that the four images are not quite the same, they rarely are even on the best lenses so don't panic unduly, but if one or more corners is obviously significantly worse than the others, the lens has been put together off-centre (the most common manufacturing fault) or has been knocked off-centre.

I say again that this is a severe test, pushing the lens very hard at its weakest settings. So why not also take another shot to see what it really can do. Set a mid-range zoom focal length, f/8, low ISO. Print that one 15x10in and prepare for a big smile :D

Cheers,

Richard.

Edited to add, if a lens is really duff, you don't even have to print the images out - just blow them up to max mag on the LCD screen on the camera and you'll be able to see if one corner shot is way different ;)
Click to expand...

Bloody hell mate, where were you four hours ago lol!

Shops shut now, but I'll go and grab it on boxing day. That's a really detailed write up man, and a I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.

Thanks a lot
 
leave1 said:
Bloody hell mate, where were you four hours ago lol!

Shops shut now, but I'll go and grab it on boxing day. That's a really detailed write up man, and a I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind feedback :) You're very welcome mate. I'm wobbling around on crutches at the moment with nothing much else to do :D

Your comments have prompted me to cut-and-paste the same test routine on another thread as it works for any lens within reason. The only caveat is that while a good lens will never fail this test, it is just possible that at bad lens might pass it, assuming it is so badly assembled that it is equally crap in all four corners. It would have to be mega bad though :lol:

Richard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top