Canon L series lens

[Big Mike]

My 17-40mm F4L isn't the sharpest lens I've ever had, but it's still pretty good IMO. We need to remember that it's a full frame, ultra wide angle lens. Most ultra wide angle lenses will have issues or limitations when it comes to comparing their image quality to other types of lenses. I do still miss my EF-S 10-22mm though.

I agree with the others. Before you upgrade, you should have some good solid reasons. I will say that the 17-40mm is better than the typical kit lens...but that doesn't mean that your photos will dramatically improve because of that.

 

[fjrabon]

My 17-40mm F4L isn't the sharpest lens I've ever had, but it's still pretty good IMO. We need to remember that it's a full frame, ultra wide angle lens. Most ultra wide angle lenses will have issues or limitations when it comes to comparing their image quality to other types of lenses. I do still miss my EF-S 10-22mm though.

I agree with the others. Before you upgrade, you should have some good solid reasons. I will say that the 17-40mm is better than the typical kit lens...but that doesn't mean that your photos will dramatically improve because of that.

If you compare it to Nikon full frame wides, there just really is no comparison. Like I said, it's not terribly awful, but it isn't clearly better in optical quality than any wide angle zoom is, which is what I meant by 'disgrace to the L line'. I wouldn't really have a problem with it, if the name didn't imply a higher level of quality that just isn't there optically. Even then, the price isn't too bad for it. If you go into it knowing it's not really up to par quality wise with most L glass, then no issue.

The biggest thing going for it is that Canon simply doesn't have many competitors to it that are close in price. My ultimate issue though is that a lot of people buy it and then think "man, what's the big deal about L glass, doesn't seem much better than the quality I get from my 17-135 EF-s."

The 16-35 L is truly worthy of being an L. The 17-40 should just be a regular EF.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Unless you have or are soon getting a full frame body the 17-40 just doesn't offer enough to me to justify the price over the kit lens. Build quality and faster focusing, but no wider in the aperture dept which to me is a deal breaker. The Tamron 17-50 is a much better deal for most people.

 

[Big Mike]

My 17-40mm F4L isn't the sharpest lens I've ever had, but it's still pretty good IMO. We need to remember that it's a full frame, ultra wide angle lens. Most ultra wide angle lenses will have issues or limitations when it comes to comparing their image quality to other types of lenses. I do still miss my EF-S 10-22mm though.

If you compare it to Nikon full frame wides, there just really is no comparison. Like I said, it's not terribly awful, but it isn't clearly better in optical quality than any wide angle zoom is, which is what I meant by 'disgrace to the L line'. I wouldn't really have a problem with it, if the name didn't imply a higher level of quality that just isn't there optically. Even then, the price isn't too bad for it. If you go into it knowing it's not really up to par quality wise with most L glass, then no issue.

The biggest thing going for it is that Canon simply doesn't have many competitors to it that are close in price. My ultimate issue though is that a lot of people buy it and then think "man, what's the big deal about L glass, doesn't seem much better than the quality I get from my 17-135 EF-s."

The 16-35 L is truly worthy of being an L. The 17-40 should just be a regular EF.

I agree with the others. Before you upgrade, you should have some good solid reasons. I will say that the 17-40mm is better than the typical kit lens...but that doesn't mean that your photos will dramatically improve because of that.

True enough, but it's also half the price of most L zooms. So while it may be just over the line to get into the L club...the old adage "you get what you pay for" still holds true. Although, I thing I've always heard people say about the 17-40, is that it's color rendition is better than cheaper lenses...so it may not be the sharpest lens in the bag, it has that going for it.

A friend of mine, who shoots full frame and APS-H on a regular basis, has tried all the Canon wide angle lenses and likes the 10-22mm best. He has modified it to mount those cameras, he just has to be careful not to let the rear element hit the mirror.

 

[pickle788]

Ok thanks for all your input guys really helpfull I might put my money into another speed light for now then one day when I get better go to a full frame with good glass. But that will be a while I still have a lot to learn thank you all.