Canon 17-40mm f4.0L - worth it?

Mr Jones

Mr Jones

Mr Jones

Soldato
Joined
16 May 2006
Posts
11,334
Location
Dubai
I'm looking to get a mid-range lens and this lens seems to stand out for my Canon 40D. It'll cost £549 from Kerso (I might go second hand, which goes for around £450).

I'll predominantly use this lens as a general walk about, wedding and events. I've got a flash (Metz 48-AF1), so as it stands, I don't think the f4.0 is going to be a problem - users please help me with feedback on them (if you've used them) or better lens suggestions.

I have been looking for a Tamron 17-50mm (had 2 opportunities and they both fell through). The Canon 17-40 lose out on 10mm, which my 50mm f1.8 can cover, and with USM and IS(Sorry, got it wrong after reading too many reviews :0), it'll be handy for composed shots in low light. Also the reason why I am thinking of the 17-40mm is when I go get the opportunity to upgrade, to FF, it can be my UWA.

My budget do not stretch pass £549 as it's a combination of my budget (£250) and what my parents can stretch (£300) as my birthday + graduation gift come next month.

Any constructive input welcome :)
Other lens I'm also considering is the Canon 10-22mm (which I'll use later today whilst assisting a wedding to see if I like it), the 17-55mm IS f2.8 is also within range for second hand...
 
Last edited:
The 17-40 doesn't have IS & is only f/4!!!

If your going full-frame and need it for weddings then a 17-35mm f/2.8 is still in budget (just) - it's the old 16-35. Only downsides are MFD is 42cm, and at 17mm f/2.8 the corners are soft on FF, by f/4 it's sharp again or at 20mm f/2.8. The newer 16-35 is optimized for the 16mm end the 17-35mm was the opposite (optimized for 35mm) so the 16-35L is soft at 35mm f/2.8.

You could also give the sigma 24-70mm a go. (especially the HSM one? - in budget used - £450ish)

However ideally, for crop a 17-55mm would be best. A 17-50mm would be good too. (f/2.8 is a must).

So if it was me
Sticking with crop - 17-55, 17-50
Going full frame - 17-35L, Sigma 24-70mm
 
If it were me, although I'm not Canon I'd go for the Tamron. Partly down to cost (and it's an awesome lens) and the fact it's f2.8 and not f4.

Plus helps towards another lens, and it holds it's value pretty well, if you go full frame - can always sell it and recoup the majority. It's about half your budget, so thats a fair whack towards an UWA or something.
 
I haven't used the 17-40 but have been tempted by it myself, I would probably be using it mainly for landscapes so the f4 wouldn't be an issue. The Tamron 17-50 non VC I did have and it's a great lens. The AF whilst quite noisy is pretty fast (the noise might be an issue at weddings?) I was sad to see mine go when I changed from 1.6 crop. It's a hard lens to beat for the money, and being popular it would be easy to sell on.
 
Last edited:
I spent a day last week shooting with a 7D and 17-40 L, even as a dedicated Nikon user I want that combo. If I was a canon user I'd grab the 17-40 without a second thought, it's optically excellent, decent build, reasonable price - there's a lot to like. Yeah it's not as fast as some other options but they're heavier and bulkier (compared to my Nikon D300 and 17-55 f/2.8 it feels less bulky and handles far better for instance). I think it's an excellent walkabout or landscape option on crop or full frame myself, if I had Canon gear I'd have one.
 
bigredshark said:
I spent a day last week shooting with a 7D and 17-40 L, even as a dedicated Nikon user I want that combo. If I was a canon user I'd grab the 17-40 without a second thought, it's optically excellent, decent build, reasonable price - there's a lot to like. Yeah it's not as fast as some other options but they're heavier and bulkier (compared to my Nikon D300 and 17-55 f/2.8 it feels less bulky and handles far better for instance). I think it's an excellent walkabout or landscape option on crop or full frame myself, if I had Canon gear I'd have one.
Click to expand...
How did the images turn out?
I just came back from a wedding and am thoroughly pleased with the use of the 70-200mm f4.0L. Sharp wide open from mid to tele. Very nice and light too on my 40D.
A brand new 70-200mm is cheaper than the 17-40mm too. Just a shame the 70-200mm f4.0L version don't come weather sealed.

triggerthat said:
If Crop, get a 17-50mm (non-VC).
Click to expand...
Dude, you still selling yours?
 
I wouldn't buy a 10-22mm. It'll be useless at weddings (The 17-40 won't be great on FF for weddings either.). A 70-200mm would be great - ideally an f/2.8, f/4 is too slow and doesn't give the same creamy bokeh but then you have no WA so baring the budget and usage in mind....

I think a 24-70mm or 17-50mm would be ideal for you at the moment.

The new sigma 24-70mm is about 600g so it's very light, it's f/2.8 so it'll work well in low-light. It's HSM so AF is silent & fast. It's pretty sharp too! The build isn't far off 'L' either. Then when you go to full frame it'll work.

The 17-50mmm has good IQ. Okay build and what not. But no USM - easy to get rid of when you go FF.

The 17-55mm would be the ideal scenario though - super sharp, great AF, IS etc. etc.

[Don't buy the 17-40 just to have an 'L' - the 17-40 doesn't sound like the right lens for you... a 17-55 sounds perfect - but if budget doesn't allow a 17-50/24-70 would still be pretty good)

Mr Jones said:
How did the images turn out?
I just came back from a wedding and am thoroughly pleased with the use of the 70-200mm f4.0L. Sharp wide open from mid to tele. Very nice and light too on my 40D.
A brand new 70-200mm is cheaper than the 17-40mm too. Just a shame the 70-200mm f4.0L version don't come weather sealed.
Click to expand...

You don't have a sealed camera!!!

(Only 1 series are properly sealed - the 7D/5D or okayish but I've heard of them dying in simple downpours and some living in the artic - I've never been to an event where a 1-series or Nikon D3/D2 has died in the dust/rain/snow.. :D)
 
Last edited:
Mr Jones said:
How did the images turn out?
I just came back from a wedding and am thoroughly pleased with the use of the 70-200mm f4.0L. Sharp wide open from mid to tele. Very nice and light too on my 40D.
A brand new 70-200mm is cheaper than the 17-40mm too. Just a shame the 70-200mm f4.0L version don't come weather sealed.


Dude, you still selling yours?
Click to expand...

Not at the moment. I was previously. Checked the bay? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tamron-17-50m...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item3f00e518dd
 
Last edited:
Mr Jones said:
How did the images turn out?
Click to expand...

Really impressive actually, very sharp, loads of detail, high ISO performance is reasonable for a APS-C sensor...it's a very nice camera and in my view the 17-40 is an ideal partner, they feels compact and easy to handle together, particularly for a reasonably high end combo. Compared to, say, the Nikon D300s and 16-35 f4 VR it's significantly smaller and lighter (the Nikon weighs half as much again as the 17-40L!).

I think it's a really underrated bit of glass all told, maybe because it had few direct equivalents, if I wanted a compact but properly capable travel kit today I'd buy a 7D, 17-40 and 70-200 f4 (and a 50mm f1.4 I guess).

I'm actually considering swapping systems for the first time really, I'll wait for the D400 to see what Nikon can do first now but the 7D is an impressive beast and Canon's mid range L glass is something that Nikon just don't have an equivalent to - Low end and high end I think Nikon do glass better personally but mid range they fail badly at the moment.
 
I recently picked up one of these secondhand a few months back for £400, so far I've been impressed by it. I'm using it on full frame to replace my old sigma 10-20 used on a crop, I'm finding not as wide but a very capable lens considering the price.

Although I use this lens for motoring photography (close up show pics), not sure how well it would suit weddings and I would find it too short for a walkabout lens.
 
BRS...
I currently have Nikon envy over the 200-400mm & 14-24mm....

...then again we have the best telephoto primes with Canon & best low-light primes...

It's all about the system and for me as a prime shooter it's canon all the way, but I'm envious of the 200-400!
 
triggerthat said:
I think it's a really underrated bit of glass all told, maybe because it had few direct equivalents, if I wanted a compact but properly capable travel kit today I'd buy a 7D, 17-40 and 70-200 f4 (and a 50mm f1.4 I guess).
Click to expand...

The 7D has some decent noise control, luckily the 40D isn't too shabby.
Your mentioned lenses are more or less what I'm aiming for, but I'll see how my 17-50mm eBay bid war goes.

triggerthat said:
Not at the moment. I was previously. Checked the bay? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tamron-17-50m...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item3f00e518dd
Click to expand...
Watching that, didn't see that earlier today :)

p0ss3s3d said:
I wouldn't buy a 10-22mm...

You don't have a sealed camera!!!

(Only 1 series are properly sealed - the 7D/5D or okayish but I've heard of them dying in simple downpours and some living in the artic - I've never been to an event where a 1-series or Nikon D3/D2 has died in the dust/rain/snow.. :D)
Click to expand...

After reviewing my photos taken today, yes for wedding, the 10-22mm isn't very useful. I do however want it for landscape though :p As for the 17-40mm, I don't want it because it's got an L, but it's the price, quality and USM I'm looking at. Image quality seems a mix but I'll see how my Tamron 17-50mm enquiry goes. If I manage to get it, then I'd definitely point my parents to the 70-200mm f4.0L. I seriously love the weight, sharpness, contrast and colours SOoC. I understand it's not as fast and the bokeh is naturally not as creamy at f4.0, for an outdoor tele and price, it's within reach. I can't cough up twice the price for 2 stop more light unfortunately :(

And no, I know my body isn't weather sealed too BUT a little bag with the lens sticking out in a drizzle is what I'm after :p
 
p0ss3s3d said:
BRS...
I currently have Nikon envy over the 200-400mm & 14-24mm....

...then again we have the best telephoto primes with Canon & best low-light primes...

It's all about the system and for me as a prime shooter it's canon all the way, but I'm envious of the 200-400!
Click to expand...

Indeed, each has something missing, even down to the bodies - I love Nikon's dual control wheels on all the semi pro upwards bodies, falls to hand much easier than the Canon controls, but I much prefer Canon's menu system, Nikon's gets worse with each revision.

I think it's all about the mid range lens wise, at the high end either are superb, Canon have a few more options but with the old 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 lineup they're the equal of each other in my view.

I guess we're always going to be envious of something or other that somebody else has!
 
bigredshark said:
I think it's all about the mid range lens wise, at the high end either are superb, Canon have a few more options but with the old 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 lineup they're the equal of each other in my view.

I guess we're always going to be envious of something or other that somebody else has!
Click to expand...

Indeed it is...

Thats very true!!!
 
Mr Jones said:
I'll predominantly use this lens as a general walk about, wedding and events.
Click to expand...
A f/4 lens isn't going to cut it. People think they will because they are cheaper, buy one because they are affordable and kid themselves that it's doing the job for them. It isn't and a f/2.8 lens will eventually follow.

Mr Jones said:
Also the reason why I am thinking of the 17-40mm is when I go get the opportunity to upgrade, to FF, it can be my UWA.
Click to expand...
If you can afford to go full-frame you'll be able to afford new lenses. Get what's best for your camera right now, not what's best for the camera you haven't even bought yet.

Mr Jones said:
Other lens I'm also considering is the Canon 10-22mm (which I'll use later today whilst assisting a wedding to see if I like it), the 17-55mm IS f2.8 is also within range for second hand...
Click to expand...
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the one you want. I deal with numerous professional wedding and event photographers who use one as their main lens on a crop-sensor camera. Just make sure you get a good one and try not to worry about the dust.
 
glitch said:
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the one you want. I deal with numerous professional wedding and event photographers who use one as their main lens on a crop-sensor camera. Just make sure you get a good one and try not to worry about the dust.
Click to expand...
I'm looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 right now, if I get it, then I'll go for the 70-200mm f4.0L too. Otherwise, all my funds might go for the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, there's one or two available...

dannyjo22 said:
I wouldn't worry about the dust anyway, a 10 minute job to remove it yourself and it does nothing to the image quality.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches ;)

and removing the dust...

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp
Click to expand...

That lens scratches is crazy!!
 
When did you go canon?! I thought you were an olympus guy:)

I don't really see a point in the 17-40 outside of landscapes. You can get much better options for general photography that are a stop faster and better range.

Your 17-50 and 70-200 option above would be a great choice. The 70-200 is a joy to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom