Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Compared to what?
Sure, the 17-40 is a bit soft in the ff corners. Is there a ff lens that wide in the price range that is sharper? (I'd like to have one [:)])
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Compared to what?
Sure, the 17-40 is a bit soft in the ff corners. Is there a ff lens that wide in the price range that is sharper? (I'd like to have one [:)])
+1. You have to compare equivalent focal lengths.
According to Jan's RAW sample pictures that he sent me the Sigma 12-24mm wide open is sharper in the center and corners than the Canon 17-40mm. But Bryan's ISO crops are the other way around, sharper in the center and corners. But the crops don't go into the extreme corners so there could be some leveling room. This sample variation is aggravating!
On a 1.6 the 17-40mm is softer overall than the 18-55mm kit lens, if you had the 18-55mm and wasn't happy with it then you probably want to look at something else.
John.
I was going to suggest the Sigma 12-24mm as well John. It is close in optical quality to the Canon 17-40mm, but is also wider AND compatible with a FF camera if you want to go that route in the future.
Personally I don
Thank you all for the imput!
Sure have to think about it for a while. Good with that comparison to get a feeling for the sharpness of different lenses!
I think the Sigma 12-24 will be hard to come by second hand here, have not seen one on the market yet, same with the EF-s 15-85 USM.
The EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS USM is up for grabs now and then, but at around +60% on the 17-40/4L price, and money is tight at the moment. Great lenses all 3 of them as i understand it.
It is leaning towards the 17-40 still, it is clearly not the best out there but seems to be the best i can afford.
Damn university! :)
<div>Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Exactly. If the OP is happy with the 17-40mm @ 17mm on a crop body, then s/he won't be looking at a 17mm lens for FF, but a 27mm lens. In that case, the 24-105mm f/4L IS kit lens (which when purchased in the 5DII kit is in the same price range as the 17-40mm), delivers performance equal or superior to the 17-40mm at overlapping focal lengths (and is sharper in the corners wide open).
But to answer your question, Jon - not from Canon. The 16-35mm II has sharper corners (still not sharp corners, but sharper than the 17-40), but at twice the price. However, theTokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 reportedly has sharper corners than the 17-40mm (still soft wide open, but that's a stop wider than the 17-40mm, and by f/4 it's substantially sharper in the corners). That lens sells for the same price as the Canon 17-40mm. TheSamyang 14mm f/2.8 is even wider, faster, much cheaper, and is significantly sharper in the corners compared to the 17-40mm (of course, it's MF only, and has a whole lot of barrel distortion).
Vanheden, I do agree with Ben that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a fantastic lens (I used one on my 7D prior to going 5DII+16-35mm II) - great for landscapes. If that's really your primary use, it's something to consider. It's very sharp, has less distortion than the 17-40mm (even when the 17-40 is used on a crop body, it still has a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end). The new price of the 10-22mm is the same as the 17-40mm, and locally for me, used copies of the 10-22mm sell for a little less than used copies of the 17-40mm.
Here are a few shots with the 10-22mm on my 7D to tempt you. [;)]
</div>
<div>
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/...595457af_z.jpg
EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 10mm, 0.6 s, f/14, ISO 100</div>
<div></div>
<div>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/...b11ea0c1_z.jpg</div>
<div>EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 13mm, 1/500 s, f/8, ISO 100</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/...c84bd200_z.jpg</div>
<div>EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 18mm, 1/100 s, f/11, ISO 100</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanheden
Personally, I buy whatever lens will meet my current needs. Then, when my needs change several years later, I go through all the hassle and inconvenience of selling the lens and buying a more appropriate one (sometimes at a loss of around 20%).
Some people do not like to resell anything because they don't have time to deal with craigslist and hawk wares on e-bay. For them, it's worth it to spend a ton of extra money on lenses now because they don't have time for things like that. If I ever get that rich, my personal shopping assistant will take care of it for me while my other servants peel my grapes, fan me with giant leaves, and carry me on a litter. Until then, it's cheaper for me to do the work myself.
If we made a list of every lens that is sharper than the 17-40 (on your 50D), it would be a mile long. Every standard zoom crop lens that I can think of would be on it. Even the lowly kit lens (18-55 IS) is sharper (and includes I.S. for one third the price). Personally, I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is cheaper, faster, sharper, and longer than the 17-40.
To me, the difference between the 17-40 and a sharp lens like the Canon 15-85 is like night and day, but I may be more picky about contrast/resolution than most photographers. The difference probably wouldn't be noticeable in a 4x6, or at f/16, but it would be noticeable in an 8x10 at f/5.6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The OP said he wanted to keep his options open for ff, which I took to mean use the 17-40 on ff. So it seems to make sense to compare it to other lenses in the same focal length range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Thanks, John. I hadn't considered these. The Tonkia does not take a filter, though, and the Samyang is MF only, so they're not for me. But they are both worthy of the OP's consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Vanheden said he wanted a ff capable lens, and assuming this is what he wants, I *still* think the 17-40 is a good way to go. However, I happen agree with you: I think the OP should get one of the superior crop lenses and worry about ff when and if the time comes. Needs change, opinions change, prices change, and available equipment changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
+1 I think the OP would be very happy with a second hand(or new) Tamron 17-50 f2.8 . Not only would it be a good wide-angle lens. It would also very well line up with his other lenses.
The 17-40 might be nice on a crop camera. I personally didn't like it on FF. And I would rather buy the Sigma 12-24 if I were looking for a wide-angle.
Also if you look at a second hand Tamron, you're looking at a bargain and it also servers very very well as a general lens on a 50D. Plus it has a 2.8 aperture....big plus! And with second hand prices, it's hard to make a bad decision on this one. You might even save some money to put into a dedicated macro lens [;)]
Obviously the 17-40 would benefit of some weathersealing. That's about the only big favor I can think of.
Good luck,
Jan
I am a bit worried how the colors will be on the other lenses, the comparison is sharpness only (from what i seen), and i realy want a good color...
And i must admit it makes me a bit sad so see everyone cracking down ont he 17-40, i always held the L lenses higher that others (since the 35mm film era), but it seems that letter dont stand for anything but a bit of dust and water protection :(
One last note to ponder for the original poster.
A replacement to the 17-40 f/4L to be announced soon? Check out this link to Canon Rumors...
www.canonrumors.com/.../ef-16-40-f4l-is-cr1
It maybe that the month after you buy the 17-40, it will be replaced by a 16-40mm f4 with IS included, and sharper corners.
Indeed, something to ponder...