New 17-40L

[Dave Throgmartin]

I've been using the 18-135mm & 28mm f/1.8 prime for landscapes and general use lately and ultimately found that neither really filled the general use niche as well as I had hoped. I just picked up a 17-40L to fill the void.

The 28 is fantastic for what it does well. It is a good, reasonable cost, wide aperture prime that can deliver the goods especially at f/2.2 or narrower. It's great for low light. It's not great for landscapes. Corners can leave something to be desired with fine detail like trees and 28mm on a crop really isn't that wide.

The 18-135 is a lens of convenience, but not critical review of image quality.

I tried the 17-40L out and was taken back by how great of a job it does. The image quality is very good with sharp details and great colors and contrast. Lots of people suggest the 17-55, but ultimately it wasn't for me. Build quality and FF compatibility are very important to me and lower cost is nice too. I look forward to taking some excellent fall colors pictures over the next couple of weeks and on an upcoming trip to the Caribbean.

Dave

[btaylor]

In my opinion the 17-40mm is one of the best value for money lenses out there. It's nice an compact too. Good one Dave, I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

[FastGass]

I would highly recomend the 17-55mm, I'm not sure how your sample of the 18-135mm and 17-40mm is but but Bryan's charts put the 17-40mm below the 18-55mm kit (which is better than the 18-135mm in its range). Yes the 17-40mm is a good value for FF but for APS-c bodies the 17-55mm is head and shoulders above the 17-40mm.

Do you have plans to migrate to FF, 6D perhaps?

Cheers,
John.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I would highly recomend the 17-55mm, I'm not sure how your sample of the 18-135mm and 17-40mm is but but Bryan's charts put the 17-40mm below the 18-55mm kit (which is better than the 18-135mm in its range). Yes the 17-40mm is a good value for FF but for APS-c bodies the 17-55mm is head and shoulders above the 17-40mm.

Do you have plans to migrate to FF, 6D perhaps?

Cheers,
John.

John,

I'm not so sure about the 18-55 comparison. I took a look and the 17-40 beats it at f/5.6 at the shorter end of the range. It has a lot more going for it too besides just sharpness:

-- really good colors and contrast
-- front element doesn't spin when focusing
-- reduced chromatic aberration
-- supreme build quality
-- based on all of this it is just a pleasure to use

Bryan also posted another comparison where the 18-55 came up quite a bit short of all its competitors.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mparisons.aspx

Dave

[clemmb]

John,

I'm not so sure about the 18-55 comparison. I took a look and the 17-40 beats it at f/5.6 at the shorter end of the range. It has a lot more going for it too besides just sharpness:

-- really good colors and contrast
-- front element doesn't spin when focusing
-- reduced chromatic aberration
-- supreme build quality
-- based on all of this it is just a pleasure to use

Bryan also posted another comparison where the 18-55 came up quite a bit short of all its competitors.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mparisons.aspx

Dave

Also weather sealed with filter.

[FastGass]

I am not negating the other features of the 17-40mm, but when I spend that kind of money one of the most important things to me are sharpness. I woundn't mind if the sharpness was only a little better but when as a whole it's worst that to me is a huge bummer. To me CA is easy to fix and with DxO it actually improves sharpness (getting CA out of the way of dietails). I did a comparison stopped down and it improves quite a bit, but that makes it a f/5.6 lens for the most part which is another hit. As far as contrast is concerned it is only comparable at f/5.6, both wide open the 17-40mm is a lot worst, check it out http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=4&APIComp=0.

I do see a reason to buy it if weather sealling and build makes a big difference to you (it does to me), but the IQ is not as good. Yes it wins in some point but for the most part it loses, which would turn me off unless I was shooting in the Amazon.

John.

[Dave Throgmartin]

John,

I've used the 17-40 and in my humble opinion it is an outstanding general use lens. I think it is sharp with excellent colors, contrast, and is a joy to use. I think it is capable of incredible image quality. The lens is very capable and I greatly look forward to using it. Plus, thanks to the build quality it'll probably still work when I no longer do!

I had the original 18-55 that came with my XT and wasn't very impressed. Maybe Canon has taken great steps forward with it the version II. If that's true then it's great for the people who use it.

Dave

[M_Six]

From Bryan's review of the 16-35mm f2.8L II:

Another very good Canon ultra-wide angle zoom lens is the Canon EF 17-40 L Lens. Costing far less money, the 17-40 L rivals the image quality of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens.

I've also heard from other folks that the 17-40 can be lacking in sharpness compared to the 16-35, although I have never used either lens.

[Dave Johnston]

I just bought the wife a 17-55mm f2.8 and she loves it.

The byproduct of this, is that I get to have the 17-40 as an ultrawide on my 5D III, IMHO that is where this lens truly shines.

So nice.

Dave.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Happy so far? You bet.


2012_09_28_0049_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr


2012_09_27_0027_rawproc_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr


2012_09_27_0031_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr


2012_09_27_9993_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr


2012_09_28_0060_rawproc_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr


2012_09_28_0100_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr

Dave