Hmmmm 17-40mm

yak.h'cir · 4 Jun 2006 at 00:02

Posty delivered my 17-40mm lens yesterday and so far i love it! It was a tough choice between the 17-40, 24-70 and the 24-105. I was looking for a good walk about lens and the finally decision came down to me wanting wider rather then longer...

The colours are so strong from this lens! Only had to take a couple of shots so far, but I'm very happy! Anyone thinking about this lens, think no longer, order now!

Pics were taken in very strong light at around mid day so that makes me even more impressed with there performance! Just wish i'd taken the flash but that can wait for another time.

It seems even 17mm at times is not quite wide enough! Maybe I need a full frame

Pickers · 4 Jun 2006 at 08:09

Loving the blues in the 2nd one, and the contrast in the last. Did you use any filters?
Looks like a sunny day way down sou'west yesterday!!!

RichDay · 4 Jun 2006 at 11:53

The top one seems a bit soft but then again I haven't got my glasses on LOL!

The other two are great, loving the colours!

I missed the other thread so how much did this set you back and what lens is it?

themask70 · 4 Jun 2006 at 19:16

Nice ones

stu.artd · 4 Jun 2006 at 20:48

The photo's are nice, good strong colours and contrast but they all seem a little soft, certainly softer than I'm used to with my 17-40 in strong light. Maybe it's just a product of the resizing though ?

yak.h'cir · 4 Jun 2006 at 20:58

The lens is the canon 17-40mm f4, used with a circular polarizer. The lens cost me £425 new.

To be honest I never notice softness/sharpness, can't see it at all! Is there a test I can do, just to make sure the lens is working properly??

SDK^ · 4 Jun 2006 at 21:17

I was using my 17-40L for the first time in months today and it's a great lens. The solid, quality build and superb images it produces is just amazing !!

stu.artd · 4 Jun 2006 at 21:22

There are some tests, taking photo's of a brick wall etc.. but I think the best way is to take photos and just look at the results.

In my opinion there's a look of softness to the 3 photo's (particularly the 1st and 2nd), but that's just my opinion. Did you use a filter ?

Here are a couple I took with my 17-40 last year, I think they're sharp but you may disagree.

yak.h'cir · 4 Jun 2006 at 21:36

All 3 look sharp to me, as well as being great pictures!

Only thing is to me they look as sharp as mine... Maybe i just have soft eyes!!!

Think i'll go and take a pic of a brick wall tomorrow and post it....

I've only just been getting into the whole sharpness thing, i've never tried sharpening in photoshop and on the camera the sharpness setting is in the middle. To get sharper pictures is it best to use the USM tool in photoshop, or is it ok to just up the settings in the camera?

Psilonaught · 4 Jun 2006 at 21:37

it's not as sharp as the 24-105 and doesn't have IS, but then it's a lot cheaper.

I personally think the 10-22 in conjunction with the 24-105 is the perfect 2 lens solution, but obviously it's two lenses & not 1!

stu.artd · 4 Jun 2006 at 21:43

yak.h'cir said:
All 3 look sharp to me, as well as being great pictures!

Only thing is to me they look as sharp as mine... Maybe i just have soft eyes!!!

Think i'll go and take a pic of a brick wall tomorrow and post it....

I've only just been getting into the whole sharpness thing, i've never tried sharpening in photoshop and on the camera the sharpness setting is in the middle. To get sharper pictures is it best to use the USM tool in photoshop, or is it ok to just up the settings in the camera?

Maybe it's just me

I've never done the brick wall one either.

It's best to turn sharpness off, or as low as possible, in camera and then use USM in photoshop. It does take longer doing it this way but you get more control.

Psilonaught, I know what you mean as I nearly bought the 10-22 but I know I'll get a full frame camera sometime and decided to go with the 17-40L as I kmow that'll work with what I have now as well as in the future.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 4 Jun 2006 at 22:13

I have been a user of this lens for over a year now and your images are just fine. It always helps any lens when combined with a well coated filter (mainly polarizers)

SDK^ · 4 Jun 2006 at 22:31

Psilonaught said:
it's not as sharp as the 24-105 and doesn't have IS, but then it's a lot cheaper.
I personally think the 10-22 in conjunction with the 24-105 is the perfect 2 lens solution, but obviously it's two lenses & not 1!

From my experience and comparisons on the net the 17-40L is at least as a sharp as the 24-105. Sure it doesn't have IS but its extremely rare that you need IS below 200mm.

Humpty · 5 Jun 2006 at 11:22

Glad you finally located one at the right price Rich.

Darryn · 5 Jun 2006 at 11:46

Im quite interested in the 17-40L, I need something short on my 1dmkII, ive got the 10-22 for my 20D and love it, I cannot decide between the 16-35L F2.8 and the 17-40L F4, Im currently more interested in the 16-35 but I havent seen any direct comparisons of the two.

yak.h'cir · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:00

Check out this website: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

The 16-35 v 17-40 debate crops up regularly. I think the general feeling is the 16-35 is obviously a better lens, but not enough to justify the cost. So only buy it if that kinda money isnt a problem for you!

yak.h'cir · 5 Jun 2006 at 13:03

Fstop11 said:
I have been a user of this lens for over a year now and your images are just fine. It always helps any lens when combined with a well coated filter (mainly polarizers)

Thanx, i'm not too worried, because they do look fine to me to. I'll be taking a lot more photos over the next few days and try and get the hang of this USM larky as well. So if there are any problems i'm sure i'll notice.

Anyway, was thinking of getting some soft filters, so this might save me some money!

Darryn · 5 Jun 2006 at 20:57

yak.h'cir said:
Check out this website: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

The 16-35 v 17-40 debate crops up regularly. I think the general feeling is the 16-35 is obviously a better lens, but not enough to justify the cost. So only buy it if that kinda money isnt a problem for you!

Cheers, just been looking thru some of the comparisons and reviews, the 17-40 seems better at the short end (17mm), with the 16-35 being better at the long end (35mm), I dont know which would suit my needs best tbh, but the F2.8 would definately help in doors/low light shots.

Im in the fortunate position where money isnt an issue, also ive found when investing in good lenses you get most of your money back when selling on, I think I will get the 16-35 when I get back from the F1, thanks again for the linkage.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 5 Jun 2006 at 21:01

yak.h'cir said:
Thanx, i'm not too worried, because they do look fine to me to. I'll be taking a lot more photos over the next few days and try and get the hang of this USM larky as well. So if there are any problems i'm sure i'll notice.

Anyway, was thinking of getting some soft filters, so this might save me some money!

I want some soft filters too

yak.h'cir · 5 Jun 2006 at 21:53

Well i ordered the filters anyway! One set of Lees polyester soft filters coming my way!

Couldn't afford the glass one!

Also I found a pic of some bricks taken with the 17-40, sharp or soft?