Lens Advice - Canon 17-40mm F4L

[pgsdeepak]

<p>Hi - <br>

I am planning to buy a wide angle lens for my camera. I currently own a EOS 40D. I had the 17-40mm f4L in my mind. But many reviews pointed out edge softness as a major problem. For crop camera, EFS 15-85 or 17-55 f2.8 we suggested as better lens. But I am planning to go full frame in the near future. My camera is over 5 years old and thought it is nearing time for an upgrade. Again I am still debating whether to go full frame or go for the 7D (or a later version of that if it comes by mid 2013). Since the dilemma of the next camera hovers around, my lens purchase decision is also kind of impacted. <br>

I have rented 17-40L, 16-35L and EFS 15-85. I liked 17-40L, pictures where good enough for me, but then I had to change the lens multiple times when I wanted to go closer. I loved the EFs 15-85. Nice walk around lens and very sharp. for some reason, I did not like 16-35L much (or rather I have not used it much)<br>

I would like to get your advice on <br>

1. Is 17-40mm f4L is a good lens for the money irrespective of the camera sensor type? <br>

2. Should I go for EFS 15-85mm(budget wont allow for 17-55 f2.8) and make my decision about my next cameras sensor type right away :)<br>

3. Does is make a lot of sense to go to a FF camera? My justification is, I already have a EOS 40D which I am not planning to sell and am hoping it will live for some more years. So buying another crop camera does not make a lot of sense. Also FF give me more wide angle opportunities. But the cost is significantly higher (for which I have to find funding by mid next year). I am not sure picture quality and photography experience wise there is any difference as such, although the night shots from my 40D always leave me wanting more and the photo quality even at low ISO is not that great (not sure if its me doing something wrong).<br>

4. if you have other wide angle lens suggestions, that would help as well. I currently own a EOS 40D, 28-135 kit lens, 100 MM f2.8 macro and 70-300mm IS USM (the non L lens). my current lens budget is less than 800$. </p>

<p>Thanks in Advance</p>

[William Michael]

<p>You will likely get a lot of opinions, and mine is based on what I do - - - and that might not might not be what you WANT.<br>

A 17 to 40/4 (or a 17 to 55/2.8) is NOT what I refer to as a WIDE ANGLE ZOOM LENS on an APS-C camera. It is a ‘Normal’ Zoom Lens.<br>

I would be looking at a 10 to 20ish zoom lens as ‘wide angle zoom lens’ for a 40D.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But many reviews pointed out edge softness as a major problem [of the 17 to 40 F/4L USM] For crop camera, EFS 15-85 or 17-55 f2.8 we suggested as better lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm? – I wonder who says that: If you put a 17 to 40 on a 40D you don’t record any of the edges.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am still debating whether to go full frame or go for the 7D (or a later version of that if it comes by mid 2013). Since the dilemma of the next camera hovers around, my lens purchase decision is also kind of impacted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, IMO it is NOT impacted.<br>

If you are undecided about what camera you will next buy then that is fantasy – deal with facts only.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> <br />I liked 17-40L, pictures where good enough for me, but then I had to change the lens multiple times when I wanted to go closer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, FL = 40mm is NOT ENOUGH REACH for you. That would FRUSTRATE me.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>1. Is 17-40mm f4L is a good lens for the money irrespective of the camera sensor type?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. If the FL range and the F/4 is useful to you and the 17 to 40 zoom FITS INTO YOUR LENS CACHE – <em><strong>what other lenses do you use?</strong></em></p>

<p><em><strong>*** </strong></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> <br />2. Should I go for EFS 15-85mm(budget wont allow for 17-55 f2.8) and make my decision about my next cameras sensor type right away :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would advise to make choices based upon the camera you have at the moment that is unless you are SURE you will buy a FF camera. It was certain for me - and I did buy two cameras of different format.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br />3. Does is make a lot of sense to go to a FF camera? My justification is, I already have an EOS 40D which I am not planning to sell and am hoping it will live for some more years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO – Yes Definitely.<br>

I planned from the inception to acquire a <strong>Dual Format DSLR Kit</strong>.<br>

You might research many of my posts here, which expand on my theories of the incredible value of owning dual format DSLR kit.<br>

But of course that means for prudence sake, I own very few (only one) EF-S lens.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>The comment by@William W about the 17-40 not being a wide angle on a 1.6 crop sensor body is a good point. Perhaps 30 years ago 28 mm was a wide angle, but with the availability of 10 mm and less, these days it's just a normal zoom.<br>

I've used the 17-40 on my 40D and it gives very good results, at no point have I looked at shots and thought "what a shame about edge softness." The 7D is undoubtedly a more capable camera body than the 40D, but is still 1.6 crop, so although you would get more frames per second, Mpx and the like, you won't go wider. If you are going to go full frame, then the 17-40 is a very good, although not extremely wide. I've used mine in combination with a 5D and 5D2 and have some excellent results with it. <br>

The combination of a crop body and a full frame body does make a lot of sense (to me).</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I agree with what William (Hello, Bill) and Peter (except about a dual-format kit, for which there are a number of good reasons) said. I bought a 17~40 long ago as an UWA zoom for film use, and when I bought my first DSLR body, a 20D, it was pressed into service as a standard zoom. Image quality was fine (much better than the 17~85 against which I tested it) but limited zoom range was frustrating. My 17~40 has long since been back in service as an UWA zoom on FF DSLRs, first a 5D and currently a 5DII. The well-known edge and corner softness is an effect seem at or near full aperture, and at f/8 or thereabouts, an aperture appropriate for landscape and townscape/architecture, there is not much to complain about.</p>

<p>The 40D is a good camera – I had one for a while – but the 7D is seriously much better, well worth the upgrade if you are sticking with 1.6-factor. There are a number of reasons why you might want to go FF, but not as many as there once were, and availability of a good UWA for 1.6-factor is not a problem. The Canon 10~22 is an excellent lens, in some ways better than the 17~40 used on FF. High ISO performance, use with TS lenses, these are the sort of reasons that make FF attractive, as well as the very coherent range of f/4L zooms – 17~40, 24~105IS, 70~200IS.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>For a 40D (or a 7D): One of the ‘advantages’ of the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM over the EF17 to 40F/4 L USM, is the <strong>Image Stabilization</strong> of the 17 to 55/2.8<br />Obviously there is Image Stabilization with the EF-S 15 to 85: but that lens is a VARYING MAXIMUM APERTURE ZOOM LENS – and I don’t like Varying Maximum Aperture Zooms: but my likes and dislikes should not necessarily affect you.<br />I don’t like VMA Zooms, because I want a known and set aperture when I am working with Flash and especially when working under the pressure of time.<br />I will save and go without other things, to get what I want.<br />For this reason, I use a 16 to 35/2.8 as my “normal zoom” on my APS-C cameras.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>(Aside): Hello Robin, Regards and best to you and yours.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I would consider (for your NORMAL lens) going with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (as opposed to the 17-55/2.8, 17-40/4, or 15-85/3.5-5.6), since you seem to be concerned about the impact to your budget. It gives you superior length (to the 17-40/4, only moderately), a faster max aperture, a fixed max aperture, and excellent IQ. </p>

<p>The only good reason to pay more for less (buying the 17-40), is if you are <em>certain</em> you will be upgrading to FF shortly, or already have. When you are certain that you want the benefits of a FF camera, then you should formulate a complete upgrade path (including your lenses).</p>

[jo7hs2]

I can only speak from experience, as I'm not currently familiar with the test data for this lens, or the competition, since I haven't been lens shopping in a while. ;) I used my 17-40/4L as a normal zoom on two different APS-C cameras, to replace an 18-55 kit

lens. I used it extensively for waterfall photography, and in that context I generally never found it lacking on the wide or

short end. A good portion of the waterfall oictures in my profile were taken with this lens. However, for landscapes, I

eventually had to add a 10-22mm. As for edge sharpness, I never had an issue, as the APS-C bodies were cropping out

that part of the lens anyway.

 

I just moved into full-frame with a 5Dmkii. I've sold the 10-22, as my 17-40 is now the wide it was designed to be. I've only

been using it a few weeks on this camera, but I tend to prefer it as a wide over the 10-22's previous performance...and

that is a very nice EF-S lens.

 

Personally, the only EF-S lens I ever considered was the 10-22. I knew I was going to move to full-frame eventually. I also strongly suspect that in a few more years full-frame will be far more mainstream in dSLRs, as the big sensor mirror-less cameras steal market share from dSLRs in general. Since the 10-22 was the only EF-S lens I considered mandatory (EF otherwise has you covered), my kit required minimal adjustment for full frame.

 

Why did I go full-frame? DOF and noise performance, along with the bigger viewfinder. The latter was a biggie for me, as I do a lot of small flower photography in the field, in warm climates where running live-view would generate too much noise, and on subjects were I'm too close for effective autofocus. Your mileage may vary.

 

From my experiences...I'd consider the 17-40/4L even for an APS-C, but especially if you are considering full-frame. Moving

to full frame will probably require some adjustments to your lens kit anyway, but this is one lens that is versatile enough

(in my opinion) for either kit. But read everybody's comments carefully, as their experiences may more closely match your personal style and preferences.

[dogbert]

<p>Th 17-40 is a good lens. It is most useful as an ultrawide angle on a FF camera. It works well within its more limited range as a normal zoom on an APS-C camera. However, I do find its range somewhat limiting on an APS-C camera. It is quite useful in a dual format kit.<br>

The extreme corners are somewhat soft on a FF camera, but I don't find that to be a problem in practice. One doesn't tend to look much at the extreme corners of most photos and if you are shooting with a faster aperture than f8 you probably won't have full DoF across the frame anyway.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I had the 17-40 for many years and I bought it over the Mark I 16-35 F2.8 as both lenses were soft and the 16-35 was

twice the price but apart from the extra stop no better. I sold my 17-40 to buy the 16-35 MkII when that came out and

since the 7D was my first APS-C body I never tried the 17-40 on a crop camera. That said I suspect that the worst of the

edge softness will not be included so it should work fine.

 

In terms of a dual format set up I think it is not a bad thing is the cameras work well together (I.e. similar handling and

different strengths and weaknesses). I find my 7D and 5DII make a good pair - my 1 series body is rather different in

controls and feel so it does not match the other cameras well (it is also an older generation 1DIIN so the menus etc... Are

different).

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>1. Is 17-40mm f4L is a good lens for the money irrespective of the camera sensor type?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite good. Edge softness is a significant issue, but only at larger apertures. This is true of many lenses. As others have suggested, the 17-40 is more like a "normal" zoom on a crop camera. You say that you've tried this lens and like it, but you loved the 15-85. Perhaps you should go with the lens you love?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />2. Should I go for EFS 15-85mm(budget wont allow for 17-55 f2.8) and make my decision about my next cameras sensor type right away :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I owned only a crop body, I avoided the crop lenses specifically because I knew I eventually wanted to acquire a full frame body. For me that was a prudent decision. My only crop lens was purchased well after I had acquired a full frame camera and was shooting dual format. It's an 18-55 IS, which I acquired specifically because it is small, light, and cheap -- as a lens that could be carried around easily and sacrificed without the shedding of too many tears.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />3. Does is make a lot of sense to go to a FF camera? My justification is, I already have a EOS 40D which I am not planning to sell and am hoping it will live for some more years. So buying another crop camera does not make a lot of sense. Also FF give me more wide angle opportunities. But the cost is significantly higher (for which I have to find funding by mid next year). I am not sure picture quality and photography experience wise there is any difference as such, although the night shots from my 40D always leave me wanting more and the photo quality even at low ISO is not that great (not sure if its me doing something wrong).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You haven't provided enough info for anyone to really give you a good answer. I wrote an article that might help you to decide for yourself:<br>

<a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>4. if you have other wide angle lens suggestions, that would help as well. I currently own a EOS 40D, 28-135 kit lens, 100 MM f2.8 macro and 70-300mm IS USM (the non L lens). my current lens budget is less than 800$.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For about $600+, you could buy a used 5D, and then your 28-135 will become a wide angle lens, AND you'll have dual format. Admittedly 28mm on a full frame isn't quite as wide as 15 on a crop, but it's still wide.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>To reply to part of your question, the 17-40mm lens is a fine lens for stopped-down, ultra-wide landscape and similar shooting on <em>full</em> <em>frame</em> cameras. It is an unremarkable performer on cropped sensor bodies, and there are better alternatives, most notably the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>As to whether you want full frame, this really depends on how you shoot, what you shoot, and what you do with the images. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[pgsdeepak]

<p>Thanks everyone. after debating back and forth and based on your response, I decided to go for the 17-40mm L and keep the full frame option open. I have photography as a serious hobby and I dont make money out of it (atleast yet. not decided on that career path yet and I have a long way to improve in photography). Also my current financial position and need for a FF camera does not really allow me to buy one yet. However, I guess am due for an upgrade pretty soon, so I might end up buying a FF camera with a 0% APR credit card :). So thought of prepping myself towards that goal :)<br>

Thanks a lot for you valuable suggestions. </p>