Going to Order 17-40L f/4

Awais Yaqub · July 15, 2008

Well this activity will be financed by my brother and father half/half,:D
I hope things go smooth and there wont be any problem at last minute. Infect i haven't told my dad how much this little lens costs !

Any Advice ?
I am going for canon because there is no dealer of any other third party manufacturer so no genuine warranty. It will be my walk around lens on 400D replacing kit lens.

DavidTO · July 15, 2008

It's a fantastic lens. You'll love it!

Moogle Pepper · July 15, 2008

Maybe you can get one from the flea market here? Might be cheaper, even though shipping..

But I think you are gonna like that lens!

ziggy53 · July 15, 2008

Awais,

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is an amazingly good lens and a very good value. It has a fair amount of distortion when used at 17mm, but it's pretty correctable in software if you notice it.

Just enjoy that lens, even wide open at f4.

Tee Why · July 15, 2008

Personally, I like the optics of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 better. It's also cheaper so it may be worth looking at if you haven't already done so.

However, the AF and the build quality of the Canon is better.

I'm sure either one will serve you well.
Congrats.

Ric Grupe · July 15, 2008

For the type of work you enjoy doing, you have made an excellent choice, Awais.

You will love it!

Awais Yaqub · July 16, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Awais,

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is an amazingly good lens and a very good value. It has a fair amount of distortion when used at 17mm, but it's pretty correctable in software if you notice it.

Just enjoy that lens, even wide open at f4.

Oh my God distortion? is it more then kit lens or similar in real world usage ?

Awais Yaqub · July 16, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

Personally, I like the optics of the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 better. It's also cheaper so it may be worth looking at if you haven't already done so.

However, the AF and the build quality of the Canon is better.

I'm sure either one will serve you well.
Congrats.

I would love to go for different options but third party is not possible in Pakistan as they will be without warranty, and there is no after sales service centers here.

Richard · July 16, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

I would love to go for different options but third party is not possible in Pakistan as they will be without warranty, and there is no after sales service centers here.

Awais, you won't be sorry. The 17-40 has excellent optics and the L build is very sturdy. The only problem is that it's going to make you want more L glass in the future.

Moogle Pepper · July 16, 2008

Richard wrote:

Awais, you won't be sorry. The 17-40 has excellent optics and the L build is very sturdy. The only problem is that it's going to make you want more L glass in the future.

It's a horrible and painful illness, with some perks, that has no cure!

ziggy53 · July 16, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Oh my God distortion? is it more then kit lens or similar in real world usage ?

You can read about it here:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

The good news is that for most images you won't notice it so it's not a problem. The better news is that when you do notice the problem, it's pretty simple to adjust in software.

Yes, it is very similar distortion to the Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6 II.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 USM IS is only slightly better so this is a weak point for Canon zoom lenses in this focal length range. (Nikon standard zooms also have a similar problem so this is not unusual or unique to Canon.)

I still highly recommend the lens and I own a copy myself.

Awais Yaqub · July 16, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

You can read about it here:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

The good news is that for most images you won't notice it so it's not a problem. The better news is that when you do notice the problem, it's pretty simple to adjust in software.

Yes, it is very similar distortion to the Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6 II.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 USM IS is only slightly better so this is a weak point for Canon zoom lenses in this focal length range. (Nikon standard zooms also have a similar problem so this is not unusual or unique to Canon.)

I still highly recommend the lens and I own a copy myself.

I never noticed any distortion in the kit lens so no problem. What a shame canon says it will take around 1 month for delivery incase they don't have it in Pakistan

20DNoob · July 16, 2008

Good luck in getting it sooner than expected, it's a fun little lens and I kind of enjoy the tiny bit of occasional distortion.

Ric Grupe · July 16, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Oh my God distortion? is it more then kit lens or similar in real world usage ?

Since you are using a 1.6 crop factor camera this distortion at the wide end will be less and as stated easily fixed.

Awais Yaqub · July 16, 2008

Ahan thank you Ric !

DavidTO · July 16, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Awais,

The Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is an amazingly good lens and a very good value. It has a fair amount of distortion when used at 17mm, but it's pretty correctable in software if you notice it.

Dude, way to kill a buzz!

silverstangs · July 16, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Well this activity will be financed by my brother and father half/half,:D
I hope things go smooth and there wont be any problem at last minute. Infect i haven't told my dad how much this little lens costs !

Any Advice ?
I am going for canon because there is no dealer of any other third party manufacturer so no genuine warranty. It will be my walk around lens on 400D replacing kit lens.

Wow I wish someone would finance the 200mm f2L lens for me, lucky man!

The 17-40 is a good lens, I was using it untill I got the 16-35mm II. I was needing the f2.8 stop, which is the only reason why I bought the 16-35mm lens. I don't use the f4 as much anymore now thou... :cry

Awais Yaqub · July 16, 2008

silverstangs wrote:

Wow I wish someone would finance the 200mm f2L lens for me, lucky man!

The 17-40 is a good lens, I was using it untill I got the 16-35mm II. I was needing the f2.8 stop, which is the only reason why I bought the 16-35mm lens. I don't use the f4 as much anymore now thou... :cry

:cry I feel sorry for 17-40.
Actually i got 50% off from the semester fee as scholarship and it is exactly half of the amount my elder bro agreed to give the other half as gift of his new job

.

Tee Why · July 16, 2008

If you shoot in RAW and use Canon's DPP, there is a feature to correct for distortion, CA, and vignetting and such. It's under the third correction tab with the noise reduction.

silverstangs · July 16, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

If you shoot in RAW and use Canon's DPP, there is a feature to correct for distortion, CA, and vignetting and such. It's under the third correction tab with the noise reduction.

That is true

Scott_Quier · July 17, 2008

I have the 17-55 f/2.8IS and it, according to this page, exhibits similar distortion at 17mm and I've only noticed it once in the past 1.5 years I've used the lens. I really don't think you have anything to worry about unless you start changing your photographic style and start shooting buildings instead of people.:D

On one hand, I believe you are going to be very happy with this purchase. On the other hand, I to believe you will become another victim of the dreaded "L" disease - welcome to the club!

Awais Yaqub · July 17, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

I have the 17-55 f/2.8IS and it, according to this page, exhibits similar distortion at 17mm and I've only noticed it once in the past 1.5 years I've used the lens. I really don't think you have anything to worry about unless you start changing your photographic style and start shooting buildings instead of people.:D

On one hand, I believe you are going to be very happy with this purchase. On the other hand, I to believe you will become another victim of the dreaded "L" disease - welcome to the club!

I am already L infected i used 70-200 of my friend it was perfect in terms of built and handling and i decided to go for 17-40L

next 70-200L 2.8IS is on my wish list. If i ever went FF i will add 24-70L 2.8 thats all

On FF 17-40L + 24-70L2.8 +70-200 2.8 thats the range i need

Scott_Quier · July 17, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

I am already L infected i used 70-200 of my friend it was perfect in terms of built and handling and i decided to go for 17-40L next 70-200L 2.8IS is on my wish list. If i ever went FF i will add 24-70L 2.8 thats all
On FF 17-40L + 24-70L2.8 +70-200 2.8 thats the range i need

Don't know if your friend's 70-200 was the f/2.8 IS or not - if not, be warned, that lens is a handful - quite heavy! But, oh so sweet!

Anyway, that lens line-up will be so sweet -you'll be set!

Awais Yaqub · July 17, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

Don't know if your friend's 70-200 was the f/2.8 IS or not - if not, be warned, that lens is a handful - quite heavy! But, oh so sweet!

Anyway, that lens line-up will be so sweet -you'll be set!

It was 70-200 F4 IS version

When i came back home and started editing of the photos noticed images shot by that L glass were so good to eyes! and images shot by my kit lens took so much time bringing back to life and still they were not like what i saw there.

Photoskipper · July 19, 2008

After waiting for a month, my friend finally hand carried the 17-40 to me and we went out together for a night shooting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
I have been so used to the 24-105 on the 5D and found the 17-40 have some distortion at the wider end.
Also, I forgot that the 17-40 does not have IS. I missed some shots due to the slow shutter setting. Corrected it after a day of shooting.
Anyway, I like the picture quality of the 17-40 and will try it for the firework over the weekend.

Ric Grupe · July 19, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

Don't know if your friend's 70-200 was the f/2.8 IS or not - if not, be warned, that lens is a handful - quite heavy! But, oh so sweet!

Anyway, that lens line-up will be so sweet -you'll be set!

I guess everything is relative. A lot of people say that the 70-200 2.8 is a beast. It makes me laugh...after carrying around a 400 DO IS and a 100-400 it feels like a toy. BTW, I just got mine and love it.:D

Awais Yaqub · July 19, 2008

Canon's pricing policy is amazingly insane in Pakistan they are selling 16-35 II and 24-70 2.8 for same price. And after increased value of dollar prices have jumped even more

pooor photographers.
Anyway 17-40L was the only piece of glass whose price is still same as in other countries and was not increased lucky me

Lets see waiting for consignment will reach in end of this month

Awais Yaqub · August 1, 2008

Question about Hood and filter.

Is Ew 83J appropriate hood for 17-40L i hope it won't look stupid on it ? I read it is effective but i am worried about size.

77 mm Hoya UV pro 1 filter what about this filter ?.

I have told my bro to buy these two things for my 17-40 L that is still not yet delivered to me

ziggy53 · August 1, 2008

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Question about Hood and filter.

Is Ew 83J appropriate hood for 17-40L i hope it won't look stupid on it ? I read it is effective but i am worried about size.

77 mm Hoya UV pro 1 filter what about this filter ?.

I have told my bro to buy these two things for my 17-40 L that is still not yet delivered to me

Awais,

Yes, I believe the Canon EW-83J is a more appropriate hood for the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM when that lens is used on a crop 1.6x camera body.

Just for completeness, the slightly larger (diameter) EW-83E hood is to be used on the crop 1.3x and full-frame bodies.

Yes, the Hoya Pro 1 series filters are rated to be pretty good. You should not have any vignetting even with the standard thickness filter ring, but there is a "slim" mount available with front threads for stacking if you wish. (Stacking atop a UV or protective filter is not recommended by me however.)

darkdragon · August 1, 2008

I don't know about the one you ordered but my 17-40L came with the hood so I'm not sure why you would need an after-market hood

I talked to the Canon reps a couple months ago and they said don't use an filters unless it is for effect (such as CPL or ND), they strongly suggested against using any sort of UV/Haze filter especially on the L series lenses as it degrades the image.

I was always a UV/Haze filter girl and had one on everything. After talking to the Canon guys though, I decided to try shooting with one and the images are definately sharper without the filters. I always use the hoods (now) as the Canon reps were talking about how the hoods are there to help with flare but also to keep your glass safe. I have not had one scratch or ding on any lens. I think that is a heated topic, the filter issue, but just thought i'd throw it out there.

I DO however find that the B+W CPL and ND filters are very useful on both my 17-40L and my 70-200L, so you might want to look into at least a good CPL.

ziggy53 · August 1, 2008

darkdragon wrote:

...

I talked to the Canon reps a couple months ago and they said don't use an filters unless it is for effect (such as CPL or ND), they strongly suggested against using any sort of UV/Haze filter especially on the L series lenses as it degrades the image.

I was always a UV/Haze filter girl and had one on everything. After talking to the Canon guys though, I decided to try shooting with one and the images are definately sharper without the filters. ...

I always test filters on the lens to see what the effect is against image quality. As a result, I keep filters on most of my lenses including "L" series lenses simply because it makes cleaning much easier and safer. I figure I can always take the filter off for critical shots. So far, leaving the filter on is working fine and I don't see much degredation or loss of contrast in most of my lenses. I also use the lens hoods faithfully.

Canon does include the filter as part of the protection on weather-proofed "L" series lenses. In other words, you do not have weather resistance "unless" you use a front filter on many of the "L" weather-proofed lenses. (... and I presume that the filter should be of the "sealed" variety.)

In my armada of lenses, the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is one of the few for which I have not found an acceptable filter, so mine is still filter-less. (The filters I tried degraded the image sufficiently that I decided not to use them. I have not tried the Pro 1 series, or B+W either, so I'm hoping Awais has some good luck.)

Going to Order 17-40L f/4

Comments