Image sharpness on 17-40 F/4 L lens

[Gee Man]

Hi Bob,


It won't let me upload the files, they're too large for this user? Maybe because I only joined today. Any suggestions? I could email them to you if you're interested.


I appreciate all the help!

[Gee Man]

Looking at some of the shots in the f/5.6 - f/11 range, they seem to improve slightly, but even at f/4, if I get in close to say a leaf or some foliage, the image quality is very good. It seems that the lens performs well if I focus to a near object, but if I try a wider shot - landscape for example - the lens doesn't impress.

[wolf]

I'm currently using the 17-40mm on the 40D. Have you compared your images to others posted on sites like flickr? The 17-40mm won't be as sharp as the 70-200mm but I've been very happy with the landscape shots I've taken with it. You can take a look at some of my shots at


http://www.flickr.com/photos/digital-aberration/tags/ef1740f4/

[EdN]

My experience with the 17-40 F4L is that it cleaned the clock of the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 kit lens. It totally killed it in terms of sharpness, colors, vignetting, corner sharpness, chromatic aberation, and everything else.

[Gee Man]

The colour on my 17-40 seems really good, very rich, but sharpness - especially at the corners - isn't impressive. There also seems to be a little CA at 17 mm. Maybe I've got a duff one. The majority of reviews are very positive, I've read about 2 negative ones, and they weren't even that bad.

[ShutterbugJohan]

• The $100 Kit lens is slightly sharper
• The $150 IS kit lens is much sharper
  
• $350 Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is sharper.
  
  
• $450 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 eats the 17-40 for breakfast.
• $1000 Canon 17-55 f/2.8 beats it, no surprise.

Yes, even the lowly $100 kit lens is sharper than the 17-40.

On APS-C bodies, the 16-35/2.8L and the 17-40/4L shine when it comes to contrast and build quality. Also that they are compatible work with future upgrades to FF. :-)