Canon 17-40 f4 L, good or not?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I want to buy one of these lenses as a do it all (or most) travelling lens
while cycling. Some of the good points I see so far, it is not too heavy
(1lb) not too big, "L" quality, fast focussing, replaces a "normal" (50mm
lens in 35mm speak) lens and a wide angle (28mm lens). I have a 24-70 f2,8
L but it is too big and too heavy to fit in my bag.

Any contrary opinions or reasons I should not get one?

Jean

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MitchAlsup@aol.com wrote:
> The 17-40 is an excellent lens by any metric, and is generally rated as
> a touch better (optically) than the venerable 16-35 F/2.8 (although not
> quite as versitile).


I think you mean the old 17-35/2.8. The new 16-35/2.8 is very good.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jean wrote:
> I want to buy one of these lenses as a do it all (or most) travelling lens
> while cycling. Some of the good points I see so far, it is not too heavy
> (1lb) not too big, "L" quality, fast focussing, replaces a "normal" (50mm
> lens in 35mm speak) lens and a wide angle (28mm lens). I have a 24-70 f2,8
> L but it is too big and too heavy to fit in my bag.

You'll be hard pushed to find anyone with a genuinely bad opinion about
the 17-40L. I have one and I love it. It's heavier than some, but if
you're happy with the weight/size vs quality tradeoff you could hardly
do better.

The only real issue for you to consider is whether it offers you enough
reach. When it's been the only lens I have with me I've occasionally
been frustrated with only 40mm. It needs a longer companion unless you
know exactly what you're shooting.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I love it on my 1D and it's OK (not as wide) on my Rebel, too.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since 2 people have mentioned the 16-35, I feel compelled to point out
the PhotoDo data base showing measurements of the 3 lenses in question.
The 17-40 is rated a touch higher than either the 16-35 or the 17-35.

All three lenses can be considered superb for most purposes. And the
16-35 is definately better than the 17-35. However, and I don't
remember all the reasons, but the 17-40 tends to outrank the 16-35 in
many reasonable comparisons; and the 16-35 outranks the 17-40 in a few
reasonable comparisons. Based only on the number of comparisons that
the 17-40 wins, it would take the nod in my book; however, that said, I
would get a 16-35 when/if I needed a lens of this focal range. They are
that close optically.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> a écrit dans le message de
news:11hu5f48o3bc360@news.supernews.com...
> jean wrote:
>
> > I want to buy one of these lenses as a do it all (or most) travelling
lens
> > while cycling. Some of the good points I see so far, it is not too
heavy
> > (1lb) not too big, "L" quality, fast focussing, replaces a "normal"
(50mm
> > lens in 35mm speak) lens and a wide angle (28mm lens). I have a 24-70
f2,8
> > L but it is too big and too heavy to fit in my bag.
> >
> > Any contrary opinions or reasons I should not get one?
>
> It's a great lens..
>
> But... It wouldn't be a good do-all for me. Even with the 1.6 crop
> 40mm isn't long enough. I like to have around 100mm at my
> disposal.
>
> Something to consider.

Already considered, I will be taking a 75-300mm IS.

Jean

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> a écrit dans le message
de news:ROKTe.7734$sx2.3179@fed1read02...
> jean wrote:
> > I want to buy one of these lenses as a do it all (or most) travelling
> > lens while cycling. Some of the good points I see so far, it is not
> > too heavy (1lb) not too big, "L" quality, fast focussing, replaces a
> > "normal" (50mm lens in 35mm speak) lens and a wide angle (28mm lens).
> > I have a 24-70 f2,8 L but it is too big and too heavy to fit in my
> > bag.
> >
> > Any contrary opinions or reasons I should not get one?
>
> Simpler, cheaper fix:
> Get a ****slightly**** larger bag!
> It isn't THAT much bigger...
> Done!
>
>

LOL, doesn't fix my lens lust one bit

Jean

Although I could take out my tools, the spare tube, the patch kit and hope
nothing breaks and I never get a flat ;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a 10D, but I am not too crazy about trying another Sigma lens however
good the reviews are. I was burned once on a Sigma lens which had a problem
I discovered too late to send it back for a full refund within the two weeks
grace period, so now I would rather pay extra for something guaranteed to
work rather than spend time and effort trying to get what was supposed to
work right out of the box working right. Canon is not immune from any
problem, but so far they have proven me they stand behind their products.

YMMV

Jean

<grendel@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1126199278.697083.173690@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know if you've got a 1.6x crop canon (10/20/300D), but I'm
> starting to toss around the idea of getting the new sigma 18-50 f/2.8
> EX DC. $400 and I've heard nothing but good things about it...and the
> f/2.8 would be really nice.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bought it today, happy as a clam ;-) Slightly smaller than my 24-70 f2,8
(1" shorter and the lens shade is also smaller) but a LOT lighter. This
lens will be a lot less intimidating when taking pictures of people, with
the 24-70, they always think I'm taking pictures of their nostrils since
it's so big.

Jean


"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:IMJyD0.5zv@stevedunn.ca...
> In article <9ODTe.30216$1g2.531@fe05.lga> l e o <someone@somewhere.net>
writes:
> $MitchAlsup@aol.com wrote:
> $> The 17-40 is an excellent lens by any metric, and is generally rated as
> $> a touch better (optically) than the venerable 16-35 F/2.8 (although not
> $> quite as versitile).
> $
> $I think you mean the old 17-35/2.8. The new 16-35/2.8 is very good.
>
> Michael Reichman's comparison of the 16-35 and 17-40 shows,
> among other things, that the 17-40 is better at the wide end and
> the 16-35 is better at the long end. But both are fine lenses.
>
> The 17-40 is my most used lens on my 20D. It suffers from some
> chromatic aberration, particularly at the wide end, but that's normal
> for any lens and particularly normal for an ultrawide zoom. It's
> sharp, focuses pretty quickly (not quite as quickly as some of my
> other ring USM lenses, but still, quickly enough for pretty much
> any use) and pretty quietly (again, not as quietly as some of my
> other ring USM lenses, but the difference is really only audible
> in a quiet room), and well built. It's also remarkably resistant
> to flare; even with the sun in the frame, it often shows no
> flare at all, despite having a dozen elements.
>
> I would have liked the 16-35's faster aperture, though honestly
> I don't need it and I've been accustomed to an f/3.5-5.6 zoom being
> my walkabout lens (on a film body) so I'm not losing any speed
> here. And I'd have liked it to go longer, so I wouldn't always
> have to carry at least two lenses, but then it would be the 17-85
> and wouldn't be up to quite the same standards optically. I can
> live with both of these limitations.
> --
> Stephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca>
> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/