Canon 17-40L + Full Frame = Disappointing Results

SDK^

SDK^

SDK^

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,216
I've been using my Canon 6D and 17-40L for a week now and the results are pretty disappointing.

1 : CA control from the middle to the edge of the frame is very poor.
2 : Sharpness from the middle to the edge of the frame is poor.

I shoot mostly at F8 and F11 and was expecting more from this lens. I have a Sigma 8-16mm used on Canon 20D and it’s much better, even at lower apertures. Although it’s not full frame so not a complete fair comparison.

CA can easily be fixed in Lightroom but sharpness is something else.
Is anyone else with this lens getting similar results?

This example shot shows the above - Untouched RAW shot, 17mm, 1/50, F11 and ISO 100.

14603346936_a8383f8ee3_o.jpg
 
I'm unable to guide you here, but I too was disappointed when I had mine. CA wasn't an issue, but the sharpness wasn't pin sharp when comparing to my 70-200 f/4L or my Sigma 17-55.
 
Personally, I would sell it and get a Sigma 17-55 or Canon 16-35, but the Canon is far more than the 17-40. The Sigma 18-35 is a good lens also.
 
Perhaps I'm expecting too much and shouldn't be viewing a 20mp image at 100%.
A quick auto tone & CA removal in LR and sharpen in PS brings improved results.

14626058452_c9a571458b_o.jpg
 
What results do you get when you apply the lens correction profile on LR? That said it's still a cheap lens and I would expect it to be that great especially at it's very widest. Is the lens new?
 
Last edited:
The LR lens correction profile is applied to both of the above images. It is probably adding to the out of focus edges, as it slightly stretches the corners to flatten the distortion.
 
SDK^ said:
I've been using my Canon 6D and 17-40L for a week now and the results are pretty disappointing.

1 : CA control from the middle to the edge of the frame is very poor.
2 : Sharpness from the middle to the edge of the frame is poor.

I shoot mostly at F8 and F11 and was expecting more from this lens. I have a Sigma 8-16mm used on Canon 20D and it’s much better, even at lower apertures. Although it’s not full frame so not a complete fair comparison.

CA can easily be fixed in Lightroom but sharpness is something else.
Is anyone else with this lens getting similar results?

This example shot shows the above - Untouched RAW shot, 17mm, 1/50, F11 and ISO 100.
Click to expand...

The Canon 17-40 is over rated, it never actually reviews that well. People just see al and think it must be great, the all reffrs to build quality not optically quality though.

The replacement 16-35 f/4 IS is better, the f/2.8 a little better again.
The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is also worth a shout.

If you want the best quality and don't mind manual focus then the best is the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 on an adapter,a popular choice for Canon landscape togs.
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
I've heard the 17-40 isn't the best lens in the world but it's still an L and I'd expect better results than that certainly!
Click to expand...

Why? L refers to build quality and not optically quality and is mostly just a marketing exercise because there are no official specification for what the build quality standards must meet (e.g. Height it can drop from, weather sealing, water proof pressure). L glass is meant to stand up to professional use and take some knocks and bangs, vs consumer lenses that are more plastic fantastic.

If L was about optical quality then many more non-L lenses would be classed as L and many current L lenses would no longer be L.
 
D.P. said:
The replacement 16-35 f/4 IS is better, the f/2.8 a little better again.
Click to expand...
The new F4 is meant to out perform the older 2.8 in terms of optical quality corner to corner.

I almost got the 17-40 f4 when i sold my 10-22mm aps-c lens and wanted something wide on FF. After reading much of the 17-40 i decided to wait and save for the 16-35 f4 :).
 
Sh4rkie said:
The new F4 is meant to out perform the older 2.8 in terms of optical quality corner to corner.

I almost got the 17-40 f4 when i sold my 10-22mm aps-c lens and wanted something wide on FF. After reading much of the 17-40 i decided to wait and save for the 16-35 f4 :).
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does seem to be much better. Reviews are very positive.
 
Last edited:
gary996 said:
My 17-40 is way sharper than that.
Have you tried micro adjustments?
Click to expand...

A 17mm focal length, F11 Aperture and a focus distance of aaprox 10 meters pretty much removes any minor focus point errors. The hyperfocal distance is 0.9 meters.

As you using Full Frame?
Can you post unedited edge of frame examples?
 
D.P. said:
The replacement 16-35 f/4 IS is better, the f/2.8 a little better again.
Click to expand...

Everything I've read is saying the new f/4 IS is significantly better than the f/2.8 II and, unless you absolutely must have the extra stop, the f/4 IS is by far the better bet.
 
D.P. said:
Why? L refers to build quality and not optically quality and is mostly just a marketing exercise because there are no official specification for what the build quality standards must meet
Click to expand...

Sorry but rubbish. "L" series lenses are as much about optical quality as they are build quality and is far from "just a marketing" exercise. Not only are they built like tanks but, in the vast majority of cases, the image quality of the L lenses is significantly better than that of any similar non-L.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Everything I've read is saying the new f/4 IS is significantly better than the f/2.8 II and, unless you absolutely must have the extra stop, the f/4 IS is by far the better bet.
Click to expand...
Yeah someone pointed that out (me) and D.P. agreed after further reading so your point in bringing up something that already been discussed to the same conclusion is what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom