Canon 17-40 (To buy or not to buy)

[DANATTHEROCK]

I have a 40D with 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400. My priority is landscape/wildlife photography. I love the ultrawide but only use it in certain circumstance. Love the 24-105, but find it a little narrow for many landscapes. Also, I read that lenses perform at their worst at the far ends of their focal range. To this way of thinking, the 10-22 in the 20-22 mm range, and the 24-105 in the 24-30 mm range, may be poor performers compared to what the 17-40 would offer performance wise in the 20-30 mm range. Which happens to be where I want many landscapes shot at. Although this would put a good bit of redundancy in my focal range, I am thinking it may get lots of use for expansive landscapes. Unfortunately, the only lenses I have ever used, are the forementioned. Just got my first dslr about 11 months back. I am very impressed with the build/optic quality of the 24-105. Being an "L" lens, should I expect the same from the 17-40? Can anyone comment on the efficacy of adding the 17-40 to my current line up.

[Killjoy]

Dan,
Is there anywhere that you can rent the 17-40?
That way you can do your own testing and see if your current lenses are soft at the ends or not.
You could take a photo with your 10-22 at the 22 end, and then take that same image with the 17-40.
Do the same with the 24-105 on the narrow end.
Go home and check the images. See if in fact the images from the 17-40 are sharper or not.

If your theory pans out, buy the new lens. But most of all, let us know what you think.
Also, you'll have images to back that up!

[HuBBaTheMan]

the 10-22 and 24-104 feels like it will cover the range and quality the 17-40 will bring you.

Definately the 10-22 on the wide area.

Now dont get me wrong, i have the 17-40 myself and it's a very good lens. Super sharp and fast to work with. It will however be more at home on a fullframe sensor. Where it will bring you the range that the 10-22 does on a crop-sensor.

[loraksus]

I used a 17-40L as my "walkaround" lens for a while (along with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS)

Stick with the 10-22. It's noticeably sharper at 17mm than the 17-40 is (yes, as you would expect it to be, since 17 is the outer end of the 17-40, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the edges of the 17-40 is already cropped on the 17-40L on an 1.6x crop body)

I think colors are slightly nicer in the 17-40, but that could be / possibly is observational bias. The 17-40 was my first L lens and the colors have always impressed me.

Build quality is nicer than the 10-22, but the 10-22 isn't crap or anything. The front element does move - so you'll probably end up using a 77mm filter as a lens cap on it (just like the 10-22)

Some kinda fail (high ISO) sample shots here between the 2 lenses
Index of /pictures/! Photography/20081008-17-40And10-22Comparison

f/4 is kind of slow (although not for most landscapes. The 17-40 does flare a lot less than the 16-35 (which is $1000 more)...
Wait... Let me re-phrase that as "It doesn't flare". It will flare in only a very very small amount of cases.

If you want any sample shots, let me know. I'm considering dumping my 17-40L since I have too many lenses ATM. I have a few other comparison shots, but my pics are sort of disorganized right now as I ran out of space on my storage array.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by loraksus

The 17-40 does flare a lot less than the 16-35 (which is $1000 more)...
Wait... Let me re-phrase that as "It doesn't flare". It will flare in only a very very small amount of cases.

...is that the 16-35 I or II ? as the II noticeably flares a lot less than the I, so now the 17-40 and 16-35 II probably are 'even' in this regard

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[loraksus]

Probably 1. I played a while back and I know a bunch of people were pissed about it.

[Imagesgranted]

for the prices i have seen you might want to consider the 16-35 mark 1 great lens in my opinion not perfect but great.

[Leehman]

This is not a promotion but I would rent a lens 17x40 from rentaglass for a week. That shoud help you decide. I have rented before buying and it does help. They are inexpensive compared to buyers remorse. I rented a 300mm this week to shoot football. Lens was great and I probably won't shoot another day game till nex year.

[DANATTHEROCK]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I appreciate it. Many things to consider for sure.

[Tykimeister]

I purchased a 17-40 L lense on ebay from a guy in California in Mint condition. Very reasonable price and the lense is the best one I have. I don't regret purchasing it at all since I love to shoot landscape.