17-40/4L alternative

[sacbee]

Hello all,

 

I have almost decided to buy 17-40/4L for my 20D. But just thought of taking

some opinions before I buy.

 

1. Is there any third party lens which costs less and equally sharper than

17-40/4L?

 

2. I'm buying it for general landscape, nature, street, occasional portrait and

travel purpose. Is F4 good enough? If not please recommend me any other lens

with wider apertures of same focal length range and good sharpness.

 

3. I am using my kit lens 18-55 and not really happy with sharpness (which is

quite obvious). The only reason I decided to buy this lens is for its "L" tag

which is known for its sharpness. Am I being judicious here?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Sachin

[yakim_peled1]

1. Consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8. No USM, no FTM, no FF compatibility, not as well built, gets longer as you zoom (small thing but some are annoyed by this) but optically it is excellent. There's also the 16-35/2.8 USM L but it is a lot more expensive. See http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

2. F/4 may be limiting at times. You can compensate for many things buy bumping the ISO but if you want shallow DoF (e.g. for portraits), faster aperture is the only way.

 

3. L lenses are Canon's best lenses in many aspects so going for an L is a safe bet. However, they are - by no means - the only lenses which excel in certain aspects. For example, many non-L primes are optically superior to some L zooms.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[PuppyDigs]

I have the 17-40 4L USM and my copy is truly excellent. However, if it's your only lens, its

a bit short for portraits, although I find it ideal for landscapes. The feel and build quality

are amazingly compared to a kit lens. AF rips. However, If you have the bucks to burn, the

EFs 17-55 2.8 IS USM is a dream lens for APS

sensors: a little more reach, IS and F2.8. It's a mit full...

 

I just played with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 at Shirokiya. It was $495 instore. I can't speak for

sharpness, but it's certainly tiny compared to the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM and even smaller

than

the 17-40, at least at 17mm. When you zoom it grows to double the length. The 17-40

has

internal zoom so it doesn't grow. The Tamron's MF ring turns during AF operation, so

you'll have to watch

your fingers. Plus AF

is

rather loud and buzzy. The spinning MF ring would drive me nuts...

[buck_rogers1]

I bought one recently (for a 30D and travelling throughout SE Asia) and am thinking of selling it. While it was a big leap over the kit lens, it certainly didn't hold up to my non L primes 35 and 85 (naively hoped that it might be close). The range of focal lengths is so limited on it (2.4x) I rarely appreciated the zoom. I felt the barrel distortion at 17mm made it questionable at that length and f/4 (5.6 to be sharper) at 40mm makes for P&S type portraits with gobs of DOF.<p>Don't get me wrong, it is plenty sharp and has beautiful color but I'll save my pennies for 2.8 zooms from now on and stick to primes in the meantime...maybe the 20mm will fit with my 35 and 85. <p>In retrospect, the 17-85IS would have been better for my trip (wide when absolutely need it-still correcting barrel distortion--and long enough for okay candid portraits--IS also helps when the lights go out).

[gary_sissons1]

I own the 17-40 4/L and I am really happy with it but I found that there wasn't enough coverage so I got 24-70 2.8/L but this is expensive. A friend of mine has a couple of Sigma Lenses and they seem very good he is a proffesional photographer and the results are very good, The lenses are the 18-55 f2.8 I think and the 70-200 2.8 they are a lot cheaper and you may find them worth looking into also a newly released 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro could be good but I would take youre camera top a shop and try these to see if they suit you... Good luck.

[chris.sager]

If build quality is also important (as it is to me) and FF capability for film or a 5D matters at all, get the 17-40.

 

I'm very tempted by the 17-55 2.8 IS but this lens sells for over $1000.

 

I can't recomend the 17-40 enough. Its just about as sharp as the 16-35 with one stop of light loss and an extra 5mm on the long end. Color and contrast are superb, and its built like a tank.

 

If you were to get one and change your mind, this lense can be sold for 85% - 90% of its new price, not a very risky proposition! It will be worlds better than the 18-55!

[lovcom_photo]

There is NO 3rd party zoom in that range that meets or exceeds the image quality provided by the Canon 17-40L, not even to mention build, and sealing. The Canon 16-35L is better for it's F2.8 however.

 

However there are 3rd party offerings that come close, but copy variation will be a problem.

[sudheer_m]

I have a 17-40 and i am very happy with it.

 

If this is going to be the only lens you have -- then it will be problem.

 

F/4 is too slow for indoors and 17-40 is a very limited zoom range.

 

I have 50 f1.8 and 85 1.8 primes, in addition to 70-200 f4 zoom

 

the f4 zooms are very good for what they are -- lower cost, lower weight, usable outdoors for the price u pay. -- I am comparing these with f2.8 L primes

 

compared to the kit lens, 17-40 will be better optically

[kbg32]

Get the 17-40L. You can't go wrong. It is an excellent lens.

[nhio]

The Canon 17-40/4 and for wide-angle the Sigma 10-20.

 

 

This is the Dream lens for a photografer's

[dogbert]

I have the sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX. It is an excellent lens. Though I have not compared it directly to the 17-40L, I would be suprised if at f4 it was any less sharp. It f2.8 is is very usable. It is very compact and takes 67 mm filters. While I would prefer if it had USM, its AF is fast enough and reasonably quiet.

 

It might also be worth waiting to see how the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 lens performs. If I were in the market today, this is the lens I would be most interested in.

[vincent_j_m]

You are spoilt for choice. Get the tamron 17-50/2.8 or the sigma 18-50/2.8. If you desperately want to lighten your wallet get the canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

 

Btw the kit lens is quite decent. Go down a stop or a stop and a half, and it does as well as any other lens out there. You just gotta know its weakness and strength. I've got great pics from the kit lens.