Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:59 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 17-40mm f/4L
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:04 pm 
Hi people!

I am thinking about upgrading my 400D kit lens. What does U think about 17-40mm f/4L?

I have decided for this lens because I want to get as much as I can from 400D.
In a year or two I am thinking about buying 24-105mm L, 70-200mm L and 40D body.
I`ll never go for full frame, just want to get lenses which brings the best from sensor of current 400D and future 40D.

Cheers!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:11 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9833
Location: UK
.
Just in case you missed them Gordon reviewed the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens with the 400D/XTi here and as part of a kit lens upgrade group test here.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:16 pm 
Thanks Bob for info. I have see all that reviews (I have check out all reviews on C-labs.com:). My upgrade is mostly based on image quality, not on greater zoom range. That is main reason why I asking about L lenses.

Cheers!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:03 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9833
Location: UK
.
I admit I've been drawn to the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM myself (more reviews here and here) but I don't often feel the need for a shorter focal length than the 24mm my 24-105mm f/4L IS USM offers. The 730.00kn cashback (£70 in the UK) does make this lens tempting though, especially as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is only attracting 365.00kn cashback.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Drazen, the 17-40mm is one of the most affordable L zooms, so is certainly tempting in that regard. You'll notice a huge step-up in build quality and focusing over the kit lens. Optically, it's very good, but on the samples I've tested it's much better zoomed-out than zoomed-in. This mostly affects full frame bodies though.

I've also heard opposite reports from trusted owners, so perhaps they changed the optical design - you may wish to try before you buy! (look closely in the corners when zoomed out and zoomed-in)

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:32 am 
Bob
With this cash back 24-105L is a very attempting offer. Never the less, I’ll go first with 17-40 L because my hiking adventures, where I need decent wide angle more often then telephoto. One more very important thing for me about 17-40 L is that front end of lens doesn’t rotate. This is just GREAT for my Lowepro Off Trail 1 bag!

Gordon
I’ll defiantly try out lens before shopping (which be around Xmas). I really like your review of 17-40L and lenses which U choose to compare with 17-40L. Corner sharpness of 17-40 is great. 17-55 is also good but 17-55 is more expensive and bigger and it has rotating front end.

Thanks for advices guys!
Cheers!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:28 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Drazen Gal, just a quick note - the 17-55mm f2.8 does not have a rotating front end! The 18-55mm does though...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:41 am 
Thanks Gordon. Yes, U are right about 17-55. It was my English spelling mistake (I’m not so good in English). What I’m trying to say is that 17-40L dose not have front end which extend when I’m zooming. This is very good when comes to position in which I carry around camera in Lowepro Off Trail 1 (full camera weight is on lens).

Cheers!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:24 pm 
If you won't get a full frame in the future, I highly recommend the 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM. It's more expensive, and that's pretty much its only downside compared to the 17-40. Other than that, the 17-55 covers the entire zoom and aperture ranges of the 17-40 and has IS. In its focal range, the 17-55 is truly unique. Canon doesn't even have a full frame lens that parallels its capability. (The closest equivalent on a full frame camera is the 24-70, but it doesn't have IS.)

Of course, the price is a ripoff. :-) If you can do without IS (which I can't), I suggest the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 F/2.8. Both come close to the optical quality of the 17-55 and are about half the price. Since you don't want to go full frame, I would prefer either of these to the 17-40.

If you do go with the 17-55, and add the 70-200 later, I don't think the 24-105 would be necessary. Others of course will disagree, but I believe the 24-105 is better suited on a full frame camera.

Storing the 17-55 in a camera bag shouldn't be a problem; you just zoom all the way out first. I'm a little confused about your concern there.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:41 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9833
Location: UK
Hi blahsome,

Not having either the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM all I can do is read the reviews so it's always nice to see personal recommendations. The reviews I have seen suggest that the 17-55 is optically a little sharper (but the 17-40 is still very good) but loses out to the 17-40 for build quality and vignetting. Do you notice the more than 1ev vignetting on your 17-55 when shooting at f/2.8?

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:23 pm 
Hi Bob,

I do notice a bit vignetting at F2.8 on the 17-55, but it hasn't been a problem for me yet. I only use F2.8 for portraiture and low light stuff, and for me vignetting is typically not a concern in those situations.

The 17-40 doesn't have F2.8, so the comparison is not applicable there. At F4, I would be surprised if vignetting is a lot different between the two models. Of course, I have not used the 17-40 myself, so don't quote me on that.

The 17-40 definitely has better build quality, and that's important to a lot of people. To me, the 17-55 has more than adequate build quality itself, much much better than the kit lens. I care mostly about the end product--the pictures. Better build quality unfortunately does not show up in my pictures. :-)

I guess what I'm getting at is that both lenses are terrific candidates, along with the Tamron and Sigma lenses I recommended above. The F2.8 lenses allow one to handle more situations than a F4 lens, especially when it comes to portraiture and low light.

The 17-40, more suitable as a wide-angle lens on a full frame body, has been a very popular normal zoom (general purpose) lens for crop bodies because Canon didn't offer a high-quality OEM lens for crop cameras around this focal range. (Many people hesitate to purchase third party lenses.) The 17-55, in my opinion, has changed all that. Its biggest downside is the price, and that's a very valid concern. Here in the U.S., one can get the 17-55 right now for about $850 with Canon's instant rebate and some other coupon, but it's still $200-$250 more expensive than the 17-40.

So to sum it all up, I would be somewhat hesitant to get a 17-40 as a general purpose lens for a crop camera and would consider the 17-55 and the third-party F2.8 lenses first. Now, depending on one's shooting style, I think that choosing between the 17-55 and the 24-105 would be a harder decision to make.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9833
Location: UK
blahsome wrote:
...At F4, I would be surprised if vignetting is a lot different between the two models...

The Photozone tests (here and here) do show that the 17-40 is a little better than the 17-55 at f/4 as far as vignetting is concerned but, in my opinion, the difference is unlikely to be noticed in real life situations (and can always be corrected in software if it's an issue).

The 17-55 lens certainly seems to justify its premium. Such a shame it's an EF-S model. :?

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:42 pm 
Hi blahsome!

Thank you very much on advices! I have look upon 17-55 and I know that is great lens (F2.8 through entire zoom range), but 17-40L has few things what I need.

1. It has excellent build quality (important when I go on hiking)
2. Excellent L series optics (especially on crop sensors like 400D)
3. Most important, non extendable front end when I zooming
4. Lens hood:) :) :)

Cheers!


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group