EF 17-40/4L - is it a case of not seeing the forest for the 'red L line'?

[taner]

On the one hand we have glowing reviews, high praises, and the 'best

bang for the buck' title (jointly held with the 70-200/4L)... On the

other we have this

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GKHS&tag=

 

The debate could go on and on, but it would not hurt to hear from

those with a 'vision,' speakng from a point of authority about their

verdict on this lens.

 

I would have characterized my position as 'sitting on the fence', had

I not had my doubts about the implications of using the phrase/analogy...<div></div>

[trothwell]

I took <a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20060506-pella-tulip-time/IMG_0835.jpg">this

photo</a>, as well as most in that folder, using the 17-40mm lens with a CP filter. I wasn't totally impressed with the image quality results,

but not totally disappointed either. I would like to try a 16-35mm and

see how it compares, but I have other lens purchasing priorities at the

moment. :-)

[lovcom_photo]

I replaced my 17-40L with a 16-35L as I needed the extra stop of light. However when I had that lens (17-40L), I was very pleased with it. The 50mm F1.8 is a tad sharper at F4 up, however that is just part of the story...the L lens provides much better color rendition and contrast...too often with people it's all about just sharpness. The 17-40 is a wide angle zoom, and to be fair to Canon, and all makers of wide angle zooms, the wides are harder to make great, then for example the tele zooms. Tele zooms will always be sharper, I think we all have to be mindful of this fact.

[PuppyDigs]

I have a 17-40 4L USM and it is my first ultra wide zoom. I have nothing to similar to

compare it to but it's certainly better in nearly every way than my EF 24-85 USM (at the

overlapping focal lengths). I also have an EF 24 2.8, 28 2.8 and 35 2.0 and sure the primes

are a little sharper at F4-5.6 and have no barrel distortion whatsoever. However they're stuck

at one focal length!

 

My experience with the 70-200 4L wasn't a good one as I got a lemon but sh!t happens and

apparently most folks get a good one.

[kevin conville]

"In a world of blind people, the one-eyed man is king"

 

This adage sums it up for me. The 17-40 came along when there weren't many choices for

the upswelling of 1.6x DSLR Canon people and was/is very popular as a sort of "standard

zoom". I bought one and have gotten good results with it and have been glad to have it. It

is however, the worst Canon lens I own in terms of acuity. My other lenses being the 24

F2.8, EF-s 60 F2.8, 85 F1.8, and 70-200 F4. No surprise that the one wide zoom is the

worst performer of the Canon lot. Any fair to middlin' prime lens (at equal FL) will surpass

it.

 

I have recently bought the Tokina 12-24 F4 and it is IMO the equal of the 17-40 at their

overlapping focal lengths and, to my eye, is a wee bit better than Canon's own 10-22. So

much for the so called "L" mystique, as it pertains to this lens anyway.

 

The moral of the story is that we are STILL not being served well with regards to wide

angle lenses for Canon 1.6x bodies. The immense popularity of the various super-wide

zooms are evidence that people are starving to fill the wide angle gap but still no prime

lens offerings of any consequence.

 

The Canon wide angle experience leaves something to be desired.

[mike_meloy]

Okay, you guys can gripe about the 17-40L but I consistantly get good results with it - on

a 300D at that!

Example:

http://www.pbase.com/bosphorousman/image/52517322

[kevin conville]

I should have added that full frame Canon users also aren't being well served.

 

If you have a 1DS II or 5D and want to shoot wide or ultra wide and wants to extract the

potential of that expensive sensor you've paid for what are your options? Buy a Zeiss

Distagon? Thanks Canon.

[kevin conville]

Mike-

 

I'm glad you're proud of your example, but it doesn't show any detail.

[mike_meloy]

Kevin,

As I said, it was taken with the 300D. I think that with that sensor, it does pretty well.

Also, it was shot at iso800 by mistake and then run through a noise reduction application,

which didn't help the clearity of the image at all.

I must say that it does show a bird flying just left of center, in the top third of the photo. I

didn't see that when I was taking the pic!

I plan on upgrading to the 5D within the year and using this lens. Yeah, I know it vignettes

at wide apertures, but what WA lens doesn't on a FF camera? Just the nature of the FF

beast and I'm willing to live with that. Vignetting can be fixed in PS anyway.

[sheldonnalos]

I've shot with several 17-40mm's and 16-35mm lenses. Canon's wide's aren't jaw dropping in terms of performance, but they certainly do get the job done. My current 17-40mm has been on par with two different Canon 24mm f/2.8 primes. Complaints about the lens are about the same as you hear anywhere, slightly soft edges/corners, barrel distortion.

 

Canon's 35mm f/1.4 L mops the floor with the 17-40mm, and every prime or L lens longer than 40mm is also better. However, I've still hung onto my 17-40mm, and it sees a lot of use on both film and 1.6 digital. It's worthy of the L designation, though not at the top of the heap.

[kevin conville]

Caveats can (and will) be made for wide zooms all day. If you've ever used a Zeiss Biogon

or Distagon, or maybe a Leica Elmarit or Summicron you know great wide angle

performance.

 

To review Mike,

 

This scene is at infinity (hence the no detail remark), shot at ISO 800, F16 (look into

defraction), at 1/159 sec. (w/o a tripod?), and noise reduction applied.

 

Hmmm... why did you think this was a good example to post?

[delwyn_ching]

Had mines for almost a year and it's been through around 10,000 shots. I love the 17-40Land even when cropped at 200% or printing 11x17 prints (for work), its still sharp though some blocky pixels show up though less than a P&S.

[daniel_taylor]

This might be a better example. Here's the full image (well...my 8x10 ratio crop). 17-40L @ 29mm, f/8, 1/90s, hand held on a 10D. (And it fits the forest theme ;-)<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

And here's a pixel view crop from the image.<div></div>

[mike_meloy]

Sorry, Kevin. Guess I don't measure up to your standards. I take it that you are probably a

pro photog. That's great. Me, I just got into this about 4 years ago. Not that that is an

excuse for shooting at iso 800, when I really wanted to shoot at iso 400.

 

That's one gripe I have with the Dreb, there's not an iso indicator in the VF or on the

display unless you think to push the ISO button.

 

Granted, the 17-40L isn't as sharp as the 100mm f2.8 macro or the 50mm f1.4, or the

200mm f2.8... but it's a WA zoom. For what it is, it does a good job. Now, not all of us

have the means to plop down the bread for a Carl Zeiss prime lens, or a Leica - me

included. So I guess I'll just have to do with my Canon cr*p lenses and be happy with

them.

[daniel_taylor]

I should note that this is from a file setup for a print. Levels, color balanced, sharpened a bit. Oh, and I just realized I did not crop this one for 8x10, but left it for 8x12.

 

So is that good or bad? I have better pixel view crops from my 50 f/1.8, 70-200 f/4L, and 300 f/4L IS. Those lenses seem to capture subtle texture better. I feel like I can reach out and touch the surface of subjects shot with those lenses. By comparison I feel like I want more out of the texture captured by the 17-40L.

 

But, I don't consider this bad, especially viewed in an 8x10/12 print. Full frame may magnify the differences, *especially* towards the edges. But on FF I would have probably been shooting a prime or one of the 24-whatever L's.

 

I've seen a comparison of a Zeiss prime to this lens, and naturally this lens lost big time. But that's not entirely fair. I've never seen such a comparison with, say, a 35 f/1.4L.

 

The 17-40L is what it is. I think it's very good on cropped cameras, and a good walk around on FF.

[taner]

Here is a shot I took a couple of hours ago.

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4432398-lg.jpg"></p>

EF 17-40 @ 26mm, ISO 400 handheld 1/15 f/5.6.

<p>

Despite the 1/15sec shutter speed, I am satisfied with the amount of detail. But I think that is because this is a very close range shot.

<p>

Given the fact that this is an ultra-wide full frame lens, 'near-far' compositions are a prime application for this lens, and we all know how ultra wide shots look if you do not have a foreground element in the frame... So I am thinking the lens must have been optimized with the close range performance in mind.

<p>

I think what a lot of people are complaining about is the amount of detail they get with mid-ground and background elements in their frames. That kind of composition, of course, necessitates small apertures, DOF control and careful selection of focus point. Given the fact that diffraction sets in earlier with the small sensors, the small apertures bring further loss of sharpness (on top relying on DOF for getting the mid and background in focus)

<p>

What about infinity focus you will ask logically - well I do not know...

[erick_kyogoku]

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[kevin conville]

Photography generally, is largely a bourgeois concept. :^)

[roger.a]

I started the previous thread on this lens.

 

I am generally (but not always) a little disappointed with the results from the 17-40 lens, although occasionally it produces a shot that makes me go "wow". My other lenses (35/2.0, 50/1.4, 135/2.0) will reach that level more reliably.

 

I hesitate to blame the lens - I think most of the reports of "poor quality" from the top end Canon lenses are more likely to be user error. I have learnt enough from these two threads to realise that it's best with nearer focal points of interest. I also doubt that I will keep it, as it doesn't match my personal needs. AlthoughI think it's a great lens for the money, and a great general purpose zoom for a 20D size camera.

[christian deichert]

<i>Had mines for almost a year and it's been through around 10,000 shots.</i><p>

 

I had mines for almost a year, but I only got shot at a few times...<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

"I hesitate to blame the lens..."

 

Agreed. I tend to think the 17-40L reputation is at least partially due to how it is used. What does someone do when they get a 70-200? They shoot some subject so that it fills the frame, then ohhh and ahhh over the detail. What about the 17-40? They shoot some landscape at f/16 then wonder why the detail in the flower in the lower corner just doesn't come off as well as the flower that filled the frame with their 70-200. (Maybe not that extreme, but you get the idea.)

 

I consider wide angle landscapes to be technically more difficult than some other types of shots, yet that's the bread and butter of the 17-40L.

 

Having said that, the 17-40 is not as good as lenses it is often compared to like the 50 f/1.8 or 70-200. One wouldn't expect that looking at the MTF charts. Nor should one expect it considering the lens types being compared.

 

But it is good and quite usable.

[pjmeade]

The 17-40 is a good lens possibly a very good lens, but not a jaw dropper. It has produced some shots that I think are very good, some are very impressive. On the whole, I'm very pleased with mine, in the same way as I'm pleased with my 50/1.8. Both do a very workman like job and both deliver the goods. It's just that perhaps we are used to some very good longer lenses. I'm pleased with the first two, but I'm delighted with the 70-200/f4 and the 24-105.

 

As I learn to live with it (I've only shot a few hundred shots with it so far), I'm sure I'll develop a higher opinion of it.

 

Here's a shot I took with mine

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4341413&size=lg

 

P

[kevin conville]

Here's some pics I took w/ the 17-40 with a few showing some detail. The shot of Mt

Cook from Lake Pukaki was with the 70-200.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=554562

 

Again, the 17-40 is a very useful lens and am glad to have it but it's not a substitute for a

high quality prime.

[ellis_davison]

The biggest virtue of the 17-40 in my mind is its marvelous consistency. The only lens I can compare it to directly is a 20mm f/2.8, which is substantially sharper in the middle of the frame but breaks down in the corners. On a 6 megapixel camera I get very nice 8x10s from the 17-40, and that is about as much as I would expect from this size sensor. THe full-frame digitals challenge lenses, and I hope that once enough of them are out there, Canon will work on fixed focal length wide-angles again. The 20mm is an old design, and needs more coverage to catch the corners, and there is nothing wider (in a fixed focal length) until you get to the 14mm, which is a bit pricey.

That being said, you need to be sharpening carefully in Camera Raw or Photoshop to get the most out of the image. The higher-end cameras do not do much pocessing in the machine.

 

In short, when you get to the point where digital cameras are closely rivaling (and there is a respectable point of view that they are exceeding) the resolution capabilities of film, the limiting factors in resolution are the optics, and, marvelous as these wide zooms are, they have too many design constraints to compete with a carefully disigned and manufactured fixed focal length lens.