Canon 17-40 L - any good?

MesaMan

Howdy,

I'm getting fed up buying the duff Sigma 17-35 HSM EX as everyone I buy (secondhand) the auto focus doesn't work. It's not a chip issue as Sigma said the camera (10D) gives an "error 99" - which it doesn't.

So I'm thinking going to the Canon 17-40mm L F4 USM (used). Obviously it costs twice the price, I'm wondering whether it's worth it, COST-v-BENIFITS.
Twice the price doesn't mean twice the quality at this price range. Also with it being a "pro" lens I've noticed a lot of second hand "L" series are well used, marked not battered, used by the rich/pro who don't care so much about the cost etc - can they take this abuse?

Anyone use(d) the Sigma AND Canon? Or or other?

Any comments suggestions welcome.
Thanks,
-Rob-

Andy

www.starvingphotographer.com
www.solev.net

You be the judge

The 17-40L is a superb lens for landscapes. On 1.6x body and also on FF.

MesaMan

WOW - They're great shots, I'm sure the photographer could get better shots than me using the bottom of a wine bottle as a lens :cry

At the moment I'm new to photography and this would be my only lens (with access to a 24-85 and 70-300). That said most of my stuff seems to be outdoor landscape work. The Sigma is an 82mm filter and as I've only got a 10D the on-board flash doesn't pop up high enough and shadows the flash.

Indoor work I'd probably get a 1.4 prime (or 2.8) so the f4 shouldn't (ha famous last words) be an issue (sharper closed down more anyway). I live in the UK and our light is poor for all but three weeks of the year lol.

Of course with an L series I'd expect it to last till I upgrade to (hopefully) a 5D next year. Pushing the ISO on a 10D is more prohibitive than the 5D.

Andy

MesaMan wrote:

WOW - They're great shots, I'm sure the photographer could get better shots than me using the bottom of a wine bottle as a lens :cry

At the moment I'm new to photography and this would be my only lens (with access to a 24-85 and 70-300). That said most of my stuff seems to be outdoor landscape work. The Sigma is an 82mm filter and as I've only got a 10D the on-board flash doesn't pop up high enough and shadows the flash.

Indoor work I'd probably get a 1.4 prime (or 2.8) so the f4 shouldn't (ha famous last words) be an issue (sharper closed down more anyway). I live in the UK and our light is poor for all but three weeks of the year lol.

Of course with an L series I'd expect it to last till I upgrade to (hopefully) a 5D next year. Pushing the ISO on a 10D is more prohibitive than the 5D.

Of course you know you get what you pay for You'll not regret the 17-40L I can assure you. And Luben Solev, linked above, is from across the pond, too. Seriously look at his work - stunning stuff.

Bob Bell

Rob,

In the scheme of things, buying from a Pro is probably safer than an amatuer. Pro's use glass and bodies as tools to complete a job. In terms of glass, what matters most is the optics are right and the motors work correctly. The reason for scratches and chips in the paint is that they are used a lot and are depended on, not that Rich People abuse them. They are tools and many pro's I know send in their bodies and lenses to CPS each year for cleaning and tuneups. If you think a brand new looking lens is critical to you, then buy a new one.

I personally favor the 17-35/2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35. You might be able to find a really good price on one if you need the stop.

So don't judge a lens from its appearance Judge it on its performance.

MarkM6

Question

Bob Bell wrote:

They [lenses] are tools and many pro's I know send in their bodies and lenses to CPS each year for cleaning and tuneups.

Can someone ask for a "service history"?

Bob Bell

MarkM6 wrote:

Can someone ask for a "service history"?

Everytime you send something to CPS your supposed to send a form with your CPS number entered so I assume its possible but I don't know,.

CalKidd

I know you have had bad luck with you current Sigma, but check out the 18-50mm f/2.8. It has gotten nothing but good reviews.

ShutterTalk
PhotographyReview.com
These are from individuals some are lengthy but good information.
PhotoZone

wxwax

Bob Bell wrote:

In the scheme of things, buying from a Pro is probably safer than an amatuer. Pro's use glass and bodies as tools to complete a job.... The reason for scratches and chips in the paint is that they are used a lot...

Hijack

The very reason not to buy from a professional photographer, IMHO. As you so accurately state, they view the equipment as a tool. They use it a lot more than does an amateur. Many don't have the amateur's delicacy with their gear.

All of which are excellent reasons to buy from an amateur. Most of us baby our gear, don't really use it much... thus making ensuring it's more likely to be in better shape for resale than a hard working lens from a pro.

The worst lens I ever bought used was a 16-35 from a pro. He thought it was in good shape. Might have been, by his standards. Not by mine, though. All lens purchases from amatuers have been excellent.

End hijack.

Bob Bell

wxwax wrote:

Hijack

The very reason not to buy from a professional photographer, IMHO. As you so accurately state, they view the equipment as a tool. They use it a lot more than does an amateur. Many don't have the amateur's delicacy with their gear.

All of which are excellent reasons to buy from an amateur. Most of us baby our gear, don't really use it much... thus making ensuring it's more likely to be in better shape for resale than a hard working lens from a pro.

The worst lens I ever bought used was a 16-35 from a pro. He thought it was in good shape. Might have been, by his standards. Not by mine, though. All lens purchases from amatuers have been excellent.

End hijack.

INFIDEL Most of you? Most of you HIJACKERS?

Sid, I'm not sure how you could say that most amatuers baby stuff? I would maybe say there are 2 levels of amatuers, those who are technically proficient at photography and those learning. Someone who buy a 27-70 and then uses his t-shirt to clean his lens will do more damage than a pro laying a 400/2.8 IS on the grass to change bodies during a football game or puts a lens in a bag every day of the week and wears the paint off.

I say 2 levels because of the non stop posts at FM about filters, cleaning lenses, etc.... and how many lenses are for sale with cleaning marks or the glass that covers the sensor that is scratched.

Its okay that I disagree with you because you are a HIJACKER,

ScottG

Mesaman, take a look at my (still small) website. Everything on there so far (except the pre-digital stuff) was taken with the 17-40L 4.0....as it's my only lens so far.

Granted, they're not "stunning" photos like the links that Andy gave you, but you'll get the idea on how versatile the lens is.

I'll of course will be building up my site more and more.

wxwax

Bob, all I'll say is that when an amateur drops $500+ on piece of gear, he/she, more often than not, is terrified of it. Not everyone, of course. But most. Whereas I can't tell you how many beaten-up lenses and bodies I've seen in the hands of media pros.

It stands to reason - they use their gear more and harder. No doubt a landscape photographer handles his stuff more carefully than a sports photographer.

But given the choice, I'd opt for the terrified amateur!

Red Bull

The 17-40 looks like an outstanding lens. It is actually the next lens I am buying.

I agree with Sid. I think that amateurs are more protective of their stuff. I know that since I really don't have much money at all I REALLY take care of my stuff. Since I work harder to save up for the lens, I want to take care of it since it takes me so long to get it. I'd rather buy from an amateur than a pro.

Jeffro

MesaMan wrote:

So I'm thinking going to the Canon 17-40mm L F4 USM (used). Obviously it costs twice the price, I'm wondering whether it's worth it, COST-v-BENIFITS.

I shoot landscapes for pleasure, and forked out the big bucks for the 17-40L F4, and I love it. It was costly, but I figured it was a long term investment. Odds are I'll have the lens long after my 20D has become history. Good glass is good glass....as long as you treat it as such.

I thought about buying used, but figured I'd rather know what I started with. It takes the risk out of it.

The first time I used the 17-40 I was amazed. My old lens, with a polarizer didn't do justice to a nice blue sky. No contest at all. I even shoot some wide angles when covering motocross races, and it focuses quickly, and accurately.

It's great, it's worth the price, so if you can afford it....buy it.:D

After all you do tend to get what you pay for.

MesaMan

Fantastic replies offering the expected contrast in opinions. The bottom line appears to be "it's a great lens".

I too expect the lens to last way way way after my somewhat dated 10D and don't mind paying the extra so long as the lens would last. I hear bad things about the motors on the Sigmas going.

Thanks for the discussion - oh and Scott (nice cat)

-Rob-