I simply posted before I'd seen that someone else had already said the same, excuuuse me!
Canon 17-40L + Full Frame = Disappointing Results
- Thread starter SDK^
- Start date
I simply posted before I'd seen that someone else had already said the same, excuuuse me!
Go write out 100 times, then photograph it and post up:
"I will read a thread properly before replying."
I also had this combo a few years ago, image quality was always great
In many cases Non-L lenses are sharper than L lenses.
Most L lenses afford good optical quality but that isn't why they are L lenses. They are L lenses because they have been designed to survive the use of professional photographers like journalists.
If the L designation was about optical quality then lenses like the 17-55mm /f2.8 IS would be an L lens.
EDIT:
The L designation is a just a shortened form of the 'AL' designation used on earlier FD mount lenses that used aspherical elements which were expensive back then. apsherical elements are now much cheaper so even kit lenses can use them. The AL designation was then changed with the EF mount to market the preium lenses with superior build quality. L glass is normally good optically because it is aimed at pros, and the previous AL designation indicated the potentially superior optical quality with apsherical elements but tat requirement was dropped for the L series. There are plenty of L lenses without ASPH elements. Lenses like the 17-40, 28-300, 50mm f/1.2, 24mm TS are all renowned for not being the best optically but are L lenses. Lenses like 17-55, 10-22mm, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8 MACRO (non-L), 65mm MP-E would easily be L glass in terms of optical quality but aren't marketed as such. The TS are really a great example - the 24mm TS is an L lens but has the worst optical quality of all canon TS, the 45mm and 90mm are much better optically but are not L lenses. The 70-300mm L is another good example, it is an L lens due the build quality (focus is also likely a factor here)
Last edited:
You have far larger photosites though.
The 17-40mm definitely has issues in the corners, but all in all it is a capable little performer.
I've taken some nice shots with it. It's difficult to judge your lens from the one shot you've posted.
Post some raw files so that we can take a look in Lightroom etc.
If you're seeing issues like you're describing then I think you've got a bit of a lemon on your hands. If the lens is new I would be taking it back and asking to compare it to another copy.
As for the Canon L series lenses, even the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII isn't known for optical quality in the corners, despite its price.
The new 16-35 f/4.0 however seems to be a different kettle of fish and is getting some really nice reviews. Hopefully the price will come down a bit more in the next 12 months.
I've taken some nice shots with it. It's difficult to judge your lens from the one shot you've posted.
Post some raw files so that we can take a look in Lightroom etc.
If you're seeing issues like you're describing then I think you've got a bit of a lemon on your hands. If the lens is new I would be taking it back and asking to compare it to another copy.
As for the Canon L series lenses, even the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII isn't known for optical quality in the corners, despite its price.
The new 16-35 f/4.0 however seems to be a different kettle of fish and is getting some really nice reviews. Hopefully the price will come down a bit more in the next 12 months.
Does that make a difference to edge/corner sharpness? Thought it was a purely DR and ISO noise thing.
When viewed at 100% it will be easier to get a sharp image although a higher resolution sensor will always capture more detail but might not look as sharp at 100% unless the lens is good enough.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,412
- Location
- SE England
Viewing at 100% has been proven to be bad for your health, don't do it!
I had one a while ago, it wasn't very good at all but acceptable once processed and you didn't look at it @ 100% for too long, I used mine on a full frame (1ds mkIII)
In your shot, looks like it's suffering from diffraction at F11 - did you see any improvement at F8?
In your shot, looks like it's suffering from diffraction at F11 - did you see any improvement at F8?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 1,466
- Location
- Leicester
i recently bought the newer 55-250 STM IS and have to say it seems to produce nice sharp photos and it was cheaper than the II version
No, in a very few cases maybe.
Nope, it's about optical quality too.
No, this lens is not an "L" because Canon won't ever designate an EF-S as an "L", regardless of its quality
So you agree that L lenses are "good optically"
They're still better optically than their closest non-L equivalents.
See above regarding EF-S. The others lack the necessary build quality or are "odd-balls" like the MP-E.
Wow, one example!
Good example of what? The 70-300L has stunning image quality, way beyond any non-L telephoto zoom of similar range.
This page says it all better than I ever could: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx
As it quotes on there from Canon themselves:
Last edited:
You're right, there does seem to be a lot of antagonism and beligerance in here of late.
I'm bowing out of this one anyway as it's such an utterly stupid argument and I really can't be bothered any more.
Dunno.
A guy ask some advice regarding his set-up and it descends into an utterly pointless debate about who's manhood is bigger.
A guy posts a thread regarding a new rumoured Canon body and it descends into an utterly pointless debate about who's manhood is bigger.
A guy posts a thread asking about 2 full frame cameras and it descends into an utterly pointless debate about who's manhood is bigger.
It's pretty much why I go elsewhere these days as this place is like stuck record of late and besides everyone knows I've got the biggest manhood so the debate is doubly pointless