Canon 17-40 f/4L

[jnohallman]

Does anyone have experience with this particular lens? What do you think of it?

Jon

[JimThias]

Yes. I've had it since 2006 and I love it. Crackin' sharp at f8.

Outstanding wide angle on a full frame body, too.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Yes. I've had it since 2006 and I love it. Crackin' sharp at f8.

Outstanding wide angle on a full frame body, too.

Is it "crackin' sharp (or should I say tack sharp) at lower f-stops? Photographers will often find themselves using a wide angle in-doors or within tightly confined spaces often requiring lower f-stops to avoid noisier ISO's.

My Canon 10-22mm is crackin' tack sharp across the range with very little distortion. One of the best - crop sensor - lenses I've ever owned.

/Mitch

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Is it "crackin' sharp (or should I say tack sharp) at lower f-stops? Photographers will often find themselves using a wide angle in-doors or within tightly confined spaces often requiring lower f-stops to avoid noisier ISO's.

My Canon 10-22mm is crackin' tack sharp across the range with very little distortion. One of the best - crop sensor - lenses I've ever owned.

/Mitch

I've always found it pretty sharp - example here at F5

https://www.flickr.com/photos/d1059/6245671611/

[kszok]

I have had fine results with this lens on my 5D mk1.

Grade Crossing at Bagdad by K-Szok-Photography, on Flickr
f/7.1

Untitled by K-Szok-Photography, on Flickr
f/5.6

Non-rail image:
The Butcher Bird by K-Szok-Photography, on Flickr
f/8

[Carl Becker]

You might want to wait and see how the new 16-35 f/4 IS performs before pulling the trigger on the 17-40.

The 10-22 (for crop sensors) also now has a much cheaper, smaller, lighter, and probably sharper, alternative in the 10-18 IS STM.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Carl Becker

The 10-22 (for crop sensors) also now has a much cheaper, smaller, lighter, and probably sharper, alternative in the 10-18 IS STM.

It needed a replacement

Loyd L.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

I have the 17-40mm and it was my first L lens. WOW!

Once you go L, you do not want to go back!

I also have the 10-22mm. Both lenses I find excellent in APS-C use. I find the 10-22mm a hair less sharp than my L lenses but not in any way you could see.

Since I got my 24-70mm f/2.8, the 17-40mm is on the shelf for the time I ever get a full frame sensor camera and it becomes my ultra wide in that format.

[jnohallman]

I'm pleased to hear the positive reviews on the 17-40. I was able to snag one for a price I just couldn't pass up (even if I should have for the sake of my wallet). I'm looking forward to having some wide angle coverage back in my kit - I gave it up when I let my 18-55 kit lens go with my digital RebelXT in order to fund my purchase of a used 40D. Hopefully I'll get some good opportunities to use it when I head out to Calgary later this month. Any tips on how to get the best out of the lens?

Jon

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Is it "crackin' sharp (or should I say tack sharp) at lower f-stops? Photographers will often find themselves using a wide angle in-doors or within tightly confined spaces often requiring lower f-stops to avoid noisier ISO's.

My Canon 10-22mm is crackin' tack sharp across the range with very little distortion. One of the best - crop sensor - lenses I've ever owned.

/Mitch

Agree with you on the 10-22. I've been very pleased with it. I rarely use my 17-40 at f4, but when I do, I can tell that it's not quite as sharp as f8 (although I would contest that it still producers a better image at f4 than my 10-22).

Originally Posted by Carl Becker

The 10-22 (for crop sensors) also now has a much cheaper, smaller, lighter, and probably sharper, alternative in the 10-18 IS STM.

A $300 cheapo lens is going to be sharper than its $700 counterpart? I'm guessing it will be no better than the common kit lens garbage that Canon has been offering entry level photogs for years.

Originally Posted by jnohallman

I'm pleased to hear the positive reviews on the 17-40. I was able to snag one for a price I just couldn't pass up (even if I should have for the sake of my wallet). I'm looking forward to having some wide angle coverage back in my kit - I gave it up when I let my 18-55 kit lens go with my digital RebelXT in order to fund my purchase of a used 40D. Hopefully I'll get some good opportunities to use it when I head out to Calgary later this month. Any tips on how to get the best out of the lens?

Jon

Good to hear you got a good deal, Jon. You won't be disappointed! For me, f8 has been the sweet spot for this lens, and I try to shoot at f8 as much as possible, even if that means having to go with a higher ISO.

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

Any tips on how to get the best out of the lens?

Jon

Only to remember when shooting a moving target close up at 17mm to use a very high shutter speed

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

Any tips on how to get the best out of the lens?

Do not worry too much about rules and just have fun.

Shot with my 17-40mm.

PhotoID: 291831 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey

PhotoID: 268514 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey

PhotoID: 256401 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey

PhotoID: 327519 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey-liveseyimages.com

PhotoID: 329045 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey-liveseyimages.com

[Carl Becker]

Originally Posted by JimThias

A $300 cheapo lens is going to be sharper than its $700 counterpart? I'm guessing it will be no better than the common kit lens garbage that Canon has been offering entry level photogs for years.

I'd reserve judgment, Jim, until production copies have been reviewed. The new Canon STM kit lenses are not the same beasts that the older varieties were. Case in point:

http://tinyurl.com/canon-stm

For a Canon shooter looking to get into the wide-angle class, the new 10-18 might just be the answer given the price. Plus, IS on a wide-angle is quite hard to find.

[troy12n]

I have the 17-40L as well, and find it lacking towards the edges wider than roughly 24mm. Maybe it's just my copy though...

I dont let that stop me from using it

[Wizzo]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I have the 17-40L as well, and find it lacking towards the edges wider than roughly 24mm. Maybe it's just my copy though...

I dont let that stop me from using it

Looks OK on this one - at 17mm F6.3 on a full frame body

Berks and Hants Diversion by D1059, on Flickr

[Carl Becker]

And it looks like the new 10-18 is a step above the 10-22:

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/10-18mm.htm

This is one of very few reviews currently available, but it won't take much more for me to pull the trigger and replace my Tamron 10-24 with it.

[bigbassloyd]

Sounds like more than a step, but the 10-22 isn't great to begin with.

Loyd L.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Sounds like more than a step, but the 10-22 isn't great to begin with.

Loyd L.

While I would gladly admit the Canon 10-22mm is not the sharpest blade in the sheath, and it's DXO score is a wimpy 12, I will say it's performance on my 40D has been outstanding for me.

I just sold a tack-sharp 16x20" print of Grand Central Terminal that I shot hand-held at an 1/8th sec with the self-same 10-22mm.

BTW, I was with affable, erudite, big-huggy-bear Freericks at the time.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

BTW, I was with affable, erudite, big-huggy-bear Freericks at the time.

Did you notice, does he have dimples under his beard? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Did you notice, does he have dimples under his beard? Inquiring minds want to know!

Damn! I meant to check…

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

While I would gladly admit the Canon 10-22mm is not the sharpest blade in the sheath, and it's DXO score is a wimpy 12, I will say it's performance on my 40D has been outstanding for me.

Same here. I think some people may have bad copies or something. Aside from a focusing issue which was fixed under warranty, I've been completely happy with the image quality of mine.

[bigbassloyd]

You may very well be happy with it, but perhaps you just haven't used something superior.

I loved my lil turd canon XS, until big daddy 6d walked up and said "HI!"

I have used 4 different 10-22's over the years. Maybe they were all bad copies..

I am honestly happy Canon decided to step up the game on their ultra-wides. I look forward to trying the 10-18 out on my XS soon (if the thing still turns on.. lol)

Loyd L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

You may very well be happy with it, but perhaps you just haven't used something superior.

So you're saying there is a 10-22-ish L lens that I don't know about?

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

So you're saying there is a 10-22-ish L lens that I don't know about?

W(T)e've a(O)lready h(K)ad this di(I)scussion in a p(N)revious thr(A)ead.

Loyd L.

[JRMDC]

Dennis, I am not saying the selfie with Charles is perfect, but boy that shot looks great for what could have been a simple snapshot. Really nice.

Loyd, that's funny!

J (satisfied 10-22 user, apparently not sufficiently concerned with pixel-level detail)