17-40L Overestimated ?

[athinkle]

I bet I could train a cat to work a cable release (plunger type.) That way he could use my old Minolta SRT! Just put it outside set to the whole "sunny 16" rule and let him go nuts... Think of all the low-angle rodent photos!

[madwand]

I disagree with the OP. That may be his experience, but I have a 17-40/4 L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4 L (and also the kit 18-55 and a 28-200 (which really isn't too bad in the mid-range) on the sidelines), and don't find that I need to do frequent lens changing.

 

I find that the 17-40/4 L hits about say 90% of my cropped DSLR shooting. I've read the reviews, etc., and would really like to get a Tamron 28-75/2.8, but I haven't been able to justify it as a very useful range yet.

 

I have no argument about the OP having different findings, but the OP is making an argument for the general case, and I find that it doesn't apply to me, and I don't think I'm very unusual in my shooting.

 

The 17-40 is equivalent to 27-64 in 1.6x. I'd call this a classic range, as it covers 28, 35, and 50 -- 3 different common primes, and the 50 makes the next jump, to 80. I do know that wider still is better. There it's a question of what to fill my piggy-bank for -- the 10-22 EF-S or its ilk, or the 5D/4D/.... I think that the latter excludes the former for me, and so I live with the 17-40 for now. I find that I often have it on "17", so a 24-something will not do the job as well.

 

I think the "work with what you have" factor should not be overlooked. The OP came to his conclusions, I think, based in large part due to the 10-22 EF-S. But not everyone wants to or can get this lens. Moreover, I suggest that that commits one to EF-S, and the 17-85 EF-S could be a better answer overall there in terms of range and frequency of lens swapping and economy. If economy is not considered, and pure performance is, then the best answer will be closer to that of the OP. I don't recall any detailed comparisons (likely most who have one simply don't have the other as it would be redundant), but I am prepared to believe that the 17-85 is not much worse than the 17-40 at the wide end, and could even exceed it at the tele end. I don't know; I haven't tried the lens. But it is worth considering IMO. If you think you're going to keep a 1.6x or hand it down, assuming that the lens itself is good (which it probably is), it'd be a good companion.

 

I also admit that the "work with what you have" factor also applies to me. I'd like to wider than 27 equivalent, but am not willing to pay for it yet.

 

If, like me, you think that FF is in your not too distant future, then I think the 17-40 L + 50 is a better set than the 17-85 EF-S or a mid range + 10-22 EF-S. It's very useful now, and will become an ultra-wide later. I think that if we've managed to live with it so far, we'll manage with its further performance degradation at the corners in FF.

 

One valid counterargument in this view is that a good midrange will be wanted in FF. So if you get one now, you can benefit from it further later. This is fine, but it's a question of getting something that's better to use now or later, and some may reasonably prefer more usefulness now in the 17-40.

 

In all, I think that the OP has a good point, and that many will think similarly. However, that doesn't change the fact that for me, the 17-40 still seems to be the single best lens at this time.

[jorge_ituarte3]

Never been a big fan of third party optics but the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 EX is really outstanding optically. It is sharper than my Canon 24-70mm 2.8 on my 20D. No question about it. I would not have believed it myself untill I gave this lens a shot. Don't take my word for it check out the user reviews at the Fred Miranda site. I don't know why we don't hear more about this lens it has been a very pleasant suprise.

 

My basic kit now is very compact. Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, Canon 70-300mm DO IS.

 

My 24-70mm 2.8 L is for sale.

[kevin conville]

re: Mad Wand's response....

 

I agree w/ most of your points, but you've made numerous references to "the OP".

 

What, who, is that? It's annoying I can tell that.

[madwand]

OP is netspeak for "Original Poster" -- the person who started the thread.

[jhall]

Someone else around here said this about the 16-35 compared to the 17-40:

 

The 16-35 is on all accounts 1% better and 100% more expensive. If you don't need the

extra stop then the extra 700 bucks is a REAL wast of money. You can always pick up a

fast prime(or two) for that kind of cash.

 

I love my 17-40, sure it has limitations but doesn't every lens? 17-40 is a reasonable

zoom. With all these zooms spanning 100+ mm I'd be concerned with the sacrifice of

sharpness...

[medina photography cherry]

Another opinion in this forum is as welcome as a hole in the head, so just for the record;

I have a 17-40 F4L, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Canon 50 1.8, 70-200 2.8L. I find all my lenses useful. The 17-40 is my main lens during receptions. I was planning on getting the 24-70 2.8L or the 24-105 F4L IS, but after much consideration I went in an extreme direction: I got the 24 1.4L! Why? not that you actually care, but I shoot weddings mainly and I really need a fast lens. Since I have a 50 1.8 (which I am considering on upgrading to the 50 1.4 want to wait until the 24 1.4 and check it out) The Tamron is supposedly as sharp as the 24-70 2.8L. The only thing I do not like about it is that it zooms in reverse, but I heard that the 24-70 2.8L starts at 70mm and zooms backwards to 24mm, well that did not make much sense to me and the 24-105 F4 is just to new. So for me I want the ability to shoot in low light (receptions and such) without the need for flash so that is why I went the way I did. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

[devin_murphy]

While everyone's got a wish list, I'd love to see a 15-55 to replace the full-frame 24-85. Haven't tried the 17-40 yet; I went for a more budget-conscious option, the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and focused on better lenses in telephoto. I have a suspicion that full-frame DSLRs will come down in price, making some of the odder lenses (10,12,17mm or whatever wide) less useful in the long run (i.e. 3-5 years).