Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by doug_nashtock, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. I am a freelancer for my local paper and I am looking to upgraded to the 17-40 L lens for team trophy shots over my 70-200 non IS 2.8 and my Sigma 28-70 2.8 glass. I am asking for your assistance in choosing an inexpensive lens. Is the 17-40 a good choice for the money? Thank you all for your assistance and I apologize for not being computer literate enough to find if this is a repost. Please forgive me.
  2. stp


    Yes, it's an excellent choice for its range of focal lengths for the money.
  3. It's an excellent lens and often the one I will use for trophy presentations and team photos.
  4. Well it's not really an 'upgrade' per say over your existing glass. More specifically, it would extend your UWA capability if you are shooting FF.
    If you are shooting FF, it will open a whole new world for you (and do so fairly cost effectively) - which is a definite plus!
    If you are shooting on the crop however, you may be better served by something which will give you UWA (such as a 10-20/22/24) capability, or a more 'GP' lens like the EF-S 15-85 - which would give you a good WA (24mm eff FOV). Some of your crop options perform better than the 17-40, and are far more cost effective.
    Regardless, depending upon the environment you are shooting in, for team shots, being able to go wider than 28mm (esp on the crop!) is a must.
  5. I had one. It was a good lens. I once worked for a newspaper. If you have full frame and need wide angle it works well. I hardly ever needed that width except for large crowds or a stadium full of people. I hardly ever used the lens and sold it. Post newspaper I had a 24-105 that I used for almost everything wide that I needed and I hardly ever used the 17-40 on a full frame 5D. If you are not using full frame then the 17-40 makes a good walk around lens on a crop camera. If you are using your current lenses on a crop camera then you must be missing certain news pictures because none of your lenses are really wide.
  6. With the lenses you already have the Canon 17-40 F4L will be a great addition weather you shoot full frame or not. Mine was stolen once and when I had the opportunity to upgrade to the 24-105 F4L I still chose the Canon 17-40. It has very little vignetting even at 17MM and horizons and vertical lines stay straight and don't bow like the 24-105. I use this lens on both my Digital 5D2 and Film ELAN 7NE and just love it.... Best L-series lens made for the price.....
  7. To clarify I use a 7D most of the time, I have a 1D but cannot use it unless I have a daylight outdoors shot, the hotshoe is in need of repair. With the crop factor being involved I hope it does not change any of the previous answers. Sorry about that.
  8. If you are using an APS-C camera body a better choice would be in the 17-50(5) range with a 2.8 max aperture. The Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS version is fantastic but the under $500 Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC is an incredibly good lens at a very good price. Good luck.
  9. I had the 17-40 as my "normal" zoom on a 20D for a few years. It was a very good lens. It's not perfect; it has quite a bit of chromatic aberration and barrel distortion at the wide end. But it's quite sharp, and the mechanics and build quality are what you'd expect of an L lens.
    I ended up upgrading to the 17-55/2.8. The extra stop is nice, IS is very useful for me, and the extra reach on the long end cuts down a lot on how often I have to swap lenses (and even makes it practical again to take one lens when I want to carry the minimum amount of equipment). Optically, I think it's comparable to the L zooms I own or have owned, including the 17-40 and 24-105. It lacks the 17-40's weather sealing, which could be a deal-breaker in some uses, but it isn't a big deal for me. And its build quality is at the high end of the consumer market rather than pro, but I tend not to use my lenses as doorstops or hammers so I'm OK with that.
  10. I am not too much of a fan of the off brand lenses, the Sigma that I have is only until I can save enough to get the Canon alternative. How reliable are the off brand lenses?
  11. For the price used, yes. I sold mine in favour of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.
  12. Doug, I have read excellent reviews of the Sigma 17-50 Optical stabilised lens. Many accounts from reputable sources put it on a par (or even slightly better than) the 17-55. Currently going for USD 620 new, on Adorama.
    The 17-40L has been my bread-and-butter lens. I have used it on my film SLR, my 400D and now my full frame. If you have no plans to move to full-frame cameras, then I would strongly suggest the Sigma 17-50. Additional stop wide open, image stabilisation and an extra 10mm on the longer end, all for less cost than a new 17-40L...
  13. On your 7D, you would be better served (for about the same scratch) by a 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS USM. The extra 2mm makes a heckuva difference when you need to 'go wide'. For team shots (as well as other photojournalistic duties) this cannot be emphasized enough.
    OTOH, A Tammy or Sig 17-50 (OS/VC or not) are both going to give you capabilities the 17-40/4 lacks, and, if you can find them used, it's likely you wouldn't even take a significant hit if you decide to go FF. If you want to stick w/ Canon, a 17-55/2.8 IS USM is going to perform far far better than the 17-40 @ f2.8->f4, and give you IS to boot.
    I must say, choosing appropriate FLs and lenses to match your sensor format is often undervalued. Just because it's an 'L' doesn't make it the best available choice for your camera. In this case, it's not the best (or most cost effective) choice.
  14. Well I picked up the Tamie 17-50 VC hope to give it a try either tonight or tomorrow. Thank you all for your assistance

Share This Page