17-40L For Crop Body

[tecnica]

actually it had its fault on FF (distortion more apparent from 17mm - 20mm)

and this is such a short lens, u can handheld, u dun really need IS, it is very light too. f4 is not an issue since u are going to be shooting f8-f11 most of the time for landscape photos. For portraits, there is better lens ard. But of cos u still can shoot portrait with this lens during daytime.

I rather pay more for the IS and f2.8 because there will be times when you wish you have them and you will be cursing and swearing why did you not bite the bullet and get the 17-55 in the first place.

17-40L like the 17-55, can be stopped down to f8 but the former cannot be opened up to f2.8 like the latter because it is at best f4, which is 1 stop slower than f2.8.

 

[sinned79]

I rather pay more for the IS and f2.8 because there will be times when you wish you have them and you will be cursing and swearing why did you not bite the bullet and get the 17-55 in the first place.

17-40L like the 17-55, can be stopped down to f8 but the former cannot be opened up to f2.8 like the latter because it is at best f4, which is 1 stop slower than f2.8.

when i get a f4 lens, i wun even bother to use it to shoot in low light since i know its widest aperture is f4. i get 17-40 for its wideness not aperture.

for low light, i always goes with primes, even f2.8 may not be enough sometimes.

 

[AbsolutKev]

when i get a f4 lens, i wun even bother to use it to shoot in low light since i know its widest aperture is f4. i get 17-40 for its wideness not aperture.

for low light, i always goes with primes, even f2.8 may not be enough sometimes.

Agreed

 

[tecnica]

when i get a f4 lens, i wun even bother to use it to shoot in low light since i know its widest aperture is f4. i get 17-40 for its wideness not aperture.

for low light, i always goes with primes, even f2.8 may not be enough sometimes.

Keep in mind, TS is planning it for his crop body. Yes I agree that the 17-40L is great on full frame DSLR but not quite so on APS-Cs.

 

[sinned79]

Keep in mind, TS is planning it for his crop body. Yes I agree that the 17-40L is great on full frame DSLR but not quite so on APS-Cs.

actually i find that 17-40 is better on crop then on FF. on FF, the distortion is very apparent and obvious when u shoot at 17mm-20mm. while on crop since due to crop factor, there is no distortion at all.

the only thing is it is not really wide. except the aperture, its is still very comparable to 17-55 f2.8 with IS.

if i am TS, i will rather TS get a 17-40mm f4 + canon 35mm f2/sigma 30mm f1.4 combo over 17-55mm f2.8.

 

[arlow]

I got the 17-40 with crop body coz I will get FF eventually. If I had plan to stick to just crop body, I would have gotten 17-55 instead. As low light & bokeh are important, I also consider the 24L or 35L.

 

[darkblaster77]

After reading all the negative feedback on 17-40L, I shall do some justice for this poor lens.

If you don't mind, let me share my recent pictures taken with 17-40L and 10D (which I am currently using).
Picture tells a thousand words..

Was standing quite a distance from this fellow when I took this pix..

Here is 100% cropped (without sharpening)

For those who said that this lens is not sharp, maybe you've gotten a lemon..

F4 may be a stop slower than F2.8.. And without IS... But with correct technique, this lens is still a gem..

Here are some pictures that I took in a limestone cave. Believe me, it is really dark in there.

To sum it up, do consider this lens if you intend to go FF in the future.
Else you may consider EF-S 17-55.

 

[darkblaster77]

Here is another shot taken in a church.

17-40L with 10D
17mm @ F4
1/60sec ISO 400

Here is 100% cropped at the right top corner (Without sharpening)

 

[Kenneth67C]

It is a nice lens, not as wide as the 10mms on crop, but very sharp on FF even wide open the shots are fine, better when stopped down. The great thing about it is the ultra quick focusing, great to shoot snaps on the go, almost instantaneous focusing.

I made a mistake when I first got the 550d and went with the Tamron 17-50. Not that the Tamron is a bad lens, far from it, but when I moved to FF, I had to sell the Tamron. If I had gotten the 17-40 in the first place, I wouldn't have had to lose $$$ selling the Tamron.

 

[arlow]

My 17-40 has excellent sharpness, contrast and color rendition, with only very subtle distortion and sharpness drop at extreme corners. Overall it's a very very good, light and compact lens (compared with other Ls).

 

[FangK]

Thanks for the link. Really interesting and informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiM9IVncbzY

 

[sinned79]

I made a mistake when I first got the 550d and went with the Tamron 17-50. Not that the Tamron is a bad lens, far from it, but when I moved to FF, I had to sell the Tamron. If I had gotten the 17-40 in the first place, I wouldn't have had to lose $$$ selling the Tamron.

that is why i always advise those who already got intention to upgrade to FF (those die die want to upgrade one, either soon or later), just get the lens that is suitable for FF instead of buy-sell-buy, you end up losing money this way.

 

[Kenneth67C]

that is why i always advise those who already got intention to upgrade to FF (those die die want to upgrade one, either soon or later), just get the lens that is suitable for FF instead of buy-sell-buy, you end up losing money this way.

Thing is, when I bought the 550d, I didn't know I would upgrade to the 5Dii, so...:bsmilie:

 

[sinned79]

Thing is, when I bought the 550d, I didn't know I would upgrade to the 5Dii, so...:bsmilie:

haha ok.

for me i already long planned to get a FF even before buying a crop body but i just want to buy a crop body to try out to see if i can 'survive' my hobby. So after playing with my kit lens that comes with my crop body for a month, i decided to upgrade the lens first cos i knew i will change body very soon (waiting for the right time, happens so last year FF price drop so i cut short my wait).

 

[nedy77]

when i get a f4 lens, i wun even bother to use it to shoot in low light since i know its widest aperture is f4. i get 17-40 for its wideness not aperture.

for low light, i always goes with primes, even f2.8 may not be enough sometimes.

When I get a f4 lens, and if it's low light, I use flash.

If it's low light, then use f2.8 lens

if it's even darker then f1.8 lens?

If really dark then f1.0?

I think a flash will do a better job

 

[sinned79]

When I get a f4 lens, and if it's low light, I use flash.

If it's low light, then use f2.8 lens

if it's even darker then f1.8 lens?

If really dark then f1.0?

I think a flash will do a better job

true. a flash always helps but some ppl prefer the wide aperture + bump up ISO method.

 

[Snoweagle]

when i get a f4 lens, i wun even bother to use it to shoot in low light since i know its widest aperture is f4. i get 17-40 for its wideness not aperture.

for low light, i always goes with primes, even f2.8 may not be enough sometimes.

Regular indoor lighting is still not a problem for me when I use my 70-200 but for those very dark situations, yeah I agree with u so I just use primes.

 

[neech7]

17-40L is quite sharp, not as sharp as 15-85. lacks AF.

17-40 has AF, blindingly fast USM AF.