Canon 17-40mm f4 USML LENS

[MiKe Webster]

I own a Canon 7d and am at present thinking of purchasing a Canon 17-70mm L lens which I would be looking to use for landscape and general walk about.

I know it is a lens that has been in production for many years and I am a bit concerned that its quality may have been surpassed.

Can I ask for the experiences of other members who may have used this lens along with the 7d or who have used this lens on non full frame cameras as to what they thought of its quality and performence.

I would welcome alternative lens suggestions that may be offered.

Thanks

Mike Webster

[Donald]

Mike

I don't have that lens. But here is a link to a recent discussion on CiC. There may be others if you click on Discussion Categories above and choose 'lenses'.

[MiKe Webster]

Thanks Donald I will look at that.

Best wishes,

Mike Webster

[rpcrowe]

Although I "think" that this lens would match up quite well as a wide angle glass on a full frame camera; I have owned the 17-40L and I personally don't consider it a great addition to a 1.6x camera such as the 7D.

It is NOT a particularly wide lens for a crop camera since the equivalent wide end focal length is 27.2mm so, I consider it more as a medium focal range zoom lens and, as such, compare it with lenses like the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron siblings (VC and non VC); the 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro, OS, HSM Sigma; and of course, the expensive, but superlative, Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

The 17-40L, IMO, is too slow to use as my go-to medium range zoom having an f/4 aperture without some sort of motion compensation (IS, VC or OS depending on the brand of the lens). Additionally, the 40mm long side (64mm equivalent) of the 17-40L is just not long enough for my mid-range zoom lens. The extra 10mm of the Tamrons, 30mm of the Sigma and 15mm of the Canon (which correspond to an equivalent increase of: 16mm, 48mm, and 24mm respectively) provide the extra reach that I like because, IMO, even an 80mm equivalent is better for head and shoulders portraiture than the lukewarm 64mm of the 17-40L.

Although I generally don't like Sigma lenses (due to reverse engineering problems that has caused my only Sigma to become obsolete and usable only on cameras of the Canon 10D model and earlier); the combination of f/2.8 aperture in the lower to mid focal lengths; combined with Sigma's version of image stabilization along with an equivalent 112mm focal length and the ability to focus close enough to get a 1:2 image ratio would definitely be worth a look see.

I shoot with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens matched with a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras. I love the combination but, the 17-55mm lens is a bit short to be the only lens on a trip. The 112mm equivalent of the Sigma would be a great boon to my style of shooting. The 17-70mm Sigma is also four ounces lighter in weight than the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Four ounces is not a great amount of weight but, might matter to a photographer after a full day of walk-around shooting when every ounce seems like it weighs a pound. Also, I "might" just be able to use the 17-70mm lens on a single cmera/lens setup for some travel photography when I cannot carry a pair of cmeras and lenses.

Finally, although it bears the red ring of an L lens; the image quality produced by my 17-40L never seemed as good as my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. I am not saying that this lens did not produce good imagery. Just that the results did not seem to equal my other two lenses. However, I did not own my 17-40L at the same time as my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses so I was never able to make head to head comparisons.

I did use a 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) lens in tandem with the 17-40L and really missed the 40-70mm gap. The 55-70mm gap between my 17-55mm and 70-200mm lenses seems a lot more manageable.

[Eric M]

I pretty much agree with Richard. The 17-40L is a very nice lens, but there are better options for crop shooters.