How good is the 17-40 /f/4L?
in [SLR Cameras]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 3 Jun 2010 03:05 Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >What do the denizens of this newsgroup (those in the Canon world anyway) think >of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens? An excellent lens for the price. Bokeh is odd but color and sharpness are quite good on a 7D. Solid construction. Don't miss the IS on a wide-angle lens. [...] >(BTW, my main body is a 50D, my backup an XTi. My wife might use the lens >occasionally on her T2i.) You'll want to get the EW-83J (?) hood since the supplied one is pretty much useless for a crop sensor, and a UV filter seals the lens from the environment. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bruce on 3 Jun 2010 05:38 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:41:26 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > >What do the denizens of this newsgroup (those in the Canon world anyway) think >of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens? I used one on my 5D bodies (now both retired). It was a better lens than the 16-35mm f/2.8L but the current Mark II version of the latter comprehensively beats the 17-40mm f/4. As others have suggested, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better choice. The IS, extra stop of speed and extra 20mm on the long end are very useful attributes. Or you could do what I did and change to Nikon. <g> In most areas, Nikon and Canon lenses compete. But in wide angle lenses, whether fixed focal length or zoom, Nikon is a long way ahead of Canon. I use the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D and AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, both of which perform better than all the fixed focal length Nikkors within their zoom ranges, and the new AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR. What need is there for VR (Nikon's IS) on a 16-35mm, I hear you ask? It is ideal for candid shots at weddings and other social events and is perfect for available light shooting at very slow shutter speeds. My assistant is the main user of this lens. She regularly shoots at 1/4 sec and gets pin sharp results - provided that the subject doesn't move!
From: David Ruether on 3 Jun 2010 09:09 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:n6te06h2545caps1a21vm9jgn35jn5b3r3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:41:26 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >>What do the denizens of this newsgroup (those in the Canon world anyway) think >>of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens? > I used one on my 5D bodies (now both retired). It was a better lens > than the 16-35mm f/2.8L but the current Mark II version of the latter > comprehensively beats the 17-40mm f/4. > > As others have suggested, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better > choice. The IS, extra stop of speed and extra 20mm on the long end > are very useful attributes. > > Or you could do what I did and change to Nikon. <g> > > In most areas, Nikon and Canon lenses compete. But in wide angle > lenses, whether fixed focal length or zoom, Nikon is a long way ahead > of Canon. I use the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D and AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, > both of which perform better than all the fixed focal length Nikkors > within their zoom ranges, and the new AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR. > > What need is there for VR (Nikon's IS) on a 16-35mm, I hear you ask? > It is ideal for candid shots at weddings and other social events and > is perfect for available light shooting at very slow shutter speeds. > My assistant is the main user of this lens. She regularly shoots at > 1/4 sec and gets pin sharp results - provided that the subject doesn't > move! If the OP were willing to adapt the Nikkor 14-24 (an astonishingly good lens), 16-35, 17-35, or 20-35 (the last mostly for crop-frame since its edges FF at wide stops aren't too great...), the results would generally be sharper even with FF than the Canon equivalents, even at wide stops. Many people do this, although one then gives up the auto features ('course, one could buy a Nikon body to work well with the lens[es]...;-). --DR
From: Bruce on 3 Jun 2010 09:50 On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:09:01 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >If the OP were willing to adapt the Nikkor 14-24 (an astonishingly good >lens), 16-35, 17-35, or 20-35 (the last mostly for crop-frame since its >edges FF at wide stops aren't too great...), the results would generally be >sharper even with FF than the Canon equivalents, even at wide stops. >Many people do this, although one then gives up the auto features ('course, >one could buy a Nikon body to work well with the lens[es]...;-). Goof idea, but I really can't see the OP doing this. Diehard Canon fans don't like to admit that "their" brand cannot produce wide angle lenses that compete with the best.
From: Bowser on 4 Jun 2010 15:04
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:50:22 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:09:01 -0400, "David Ruether" ><d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >> >>If the OP were willing to adapt the Nikkor 14-24 (an astonishingly good >>lens), 16-35, 17-35, or 20-35 (the last mostly for crop-frame since its >>edges FF at wide stops aren't too great...), the results would generally be >>sharper even with FF than the Canon equivalents, even at wide stops. >>Many people do this, although one then gives up the auto features ('course, >>one could buy a Nikon body to work well with the lens[es]...;-). > > >Goof idea, but I really can't see the OP doing this. Diehard Canon >fans don't like to admit that "their" brand cannot produce wide angle >lenses that compete with the best. Funny typo: "Goof idea..." I prefer using a Canon on a Canon body for the obvious reasons: AF, metering, etc. I simply can't focus manually on modern SLRs, so whatever sharpness advantage the Nikon lens has would likely be lost due to focusing issues. |