This is my standard wide angle zoom. I sold my sigma 12-24mm for this lens and a 15mm fisheye. I've been very happy with that descision as I feel this lens has much better colors, contrast and sharpness. Not that the sigma was bad, just that this lens is better. Here's a few shots of the lens, as I know it's helpful to see what something looks like before you purchase it:

Here is is with a custom made hood:


here it is (on the left) with it's included OEM hood (the same hood as the 16-35mm and 10-22mm making it wider than it needs to be for this lens):


Also, this lens is really designed for a FF camera. It's not that you can't use it on a 1.6 or a 1.3 cropped body, it's that there are better options, at least IMHO. I bought my sigma 12-24mm for my 1DmII and it was perfect there as it's really the only option to get a true UWA zoom. When I sold that camera the 12-24 could work on a FF, but it was VERY W I D E there and it wasn't optically great... This lens is much better on FF IMHO and I've been very happy with it.

It's also much smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 16-35mm L. The new version of that lens is supposed to give this lens a run for it's money (the original 16-35mm isn't as sharp as the 17-40mm). But it's more than twice as expensive, much heavier, and it requires 82mm filters (this is 77mm like all the other L zooms). The 16-35mm is a wonderful lens, and I'd love to own it some day for the added 1mm on the wide end (it's a bigger difference than you'd think) and the faster aperture, but that won't happen until I've lined up all my other lens needs/wants first.

$.02
Ben

my first outing with it:

from the Hartford marathon:








from acadia:

from the NSOP shoot day:

Agreed on the 17-40 being a nice lens for FF. And I'm also with Ben in that I would ONLY recommend this lens for FF, there are better/cheaper options for crop sensors.

I've been happy with this lens on my 1D MK II... part of the plan is to continue using it when I go FF though.

What is the deal with that custom hood?

^ I was wondering when this review was going to go up... I might actually be that person where the 17-40 on the crop works. Maybe It was me not used to FF, but I found the 17-40 to be really wide. It might be what im used to as said, but playing with it yesterday on the 5D made me wonder if it would work for me. Im sure I would have uses for it as I am more than likely buying a 5D at some point this year. I guess thats something I should try next time.

Originally Posted by emorphien

What is the deal with that custom hood?

the OEM hood is a PITA to store in my bad because it's so wide...
So I made a new one using a 24L hood. You can use any hood that starts with EW, that means it will fit, but anything but the OEM hood will vignette so you'll have to trip it down a bit... The 24-105L hood attaches better (the 24L hood is very tight) but it requires a ton more trimming...

I have been impressed with this lens, also. I haven't actually used the supplied hood at all because it is so marginally useful. I don't have a lot to add to the review except that coming from a Sigma 10-20mm on a crop body, I appreciate the extra 10mm of range on the long end... makes it a bit easier to keep this lens on the camera all the time. Also, here are a few more sample images:

What lens comparable to this one would you guys suggest for a crop?

Just divide the focal length endpoints by 1.6 and you'll get an idea of what lens you would need for a comparable field of view. It works out to roughly 10-24... or the Canon 10-22 comes close for example. That's the Canon equivalent at least.

I know the 10-22 works out to 16-35 on the crop, but does that lens (build, colors, sharpness, IQ) compare to the 17-40? I know ben compared to the 16-35 in the OP and said the 17-40 was way better.

Oh, that's what you were asking. Well, I'm not sure if there is anything directly comparable in terms of build quality. I suspect some of the EF-S or third party lenses are close optically, no idea about build quality.

I wouldn't really say the 17-40 is way better than the 16-35, but the first gen 16-35 seems to have some compromises made to reach f/2.8.

I just thought it was interesting that Scott and Ben both said there were better options for a crop body, w/o telling what that better option was

I also just realized that Ben got rid of this lens for the 16-35...

Originally Posted by Markitos

I haven't actually used the supplied hood at all because it is so marginally useful.

get the 24-105 hood and trim it a bit. The 24L hood also works, but requires more trimming and doesn't mount to the lens as well (it's super tight).

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

I just thought it was interesting that Scott and Ben both said there were better options for a crop body, w/o telling what that better option was

The lens that's better than this on a cropper is the 17-70 sigma or 17-55 canon or a BUNCH of other 17-xx options. We're not saying as a UWA, we're saying as a standard zoom because that's what this would be on a cropper... Basically this lens is more expensive than you'd need, and doesn't have the range the other options have because this is designed to cover a FF while the others are tailored to a cropper. If you're looking for a lens that works on a cropper as this works on FF, the 10-20 and 10-22 are the options I'd look at. I havd a 12-24mm but only because I had a 1.3 cropper and that's the same basic range.

I also just realized that Ben got rid of this lens for the 16-35...

yeah, and I'm very much considering going back to the 17-40mm... The 16-35 costs twice what this lens does, is much bigger and heavier, uses 82mm filters, and for what? F/2.8? And you have to use the horribly large hood.

Thanks Ben, I'm thinking the 17-55 will be a killer replacement for the kit lens.

Originally Posted by PhatheadWRX

Thanks Ben, I'm thinking the 17-55 will be a killer replacement for the kit lens.

Do it! Love mine. thechickencow has one as well.

Yup, I used to use my 10-20mm as my walkaround lens, now the 17-55 gets my use probably 90+% of the time.

I do think though that if I went FF I'd use the 17-40 more than a 24-70.

You guys a referring to the Canon 17-55 IS right? I'm looking for something in that range too.

Yup, the 17-55, f/2.8 IS.

Just wanted to add that the 17-40 vignettes very slightly at 17mm with a regular thickness circular polarizer. I was really hoping it wouldn't so I wouldn't have to buy a thin polarizer (I'll still probably just make do), but oh well. It's really just in the corners, though, so not too bad.

I thought I had posted this, but here's my 2 17-40L hood solutions:

modified 24L hood:


modified 24-105L hood:


basically the included 17-40L hood is a reused part from the original 16-35mm (and maybe the 17-35L?). It's also used on the 10-22. It's an interesting hood, but if you store it on the lens (either reversed or normally) it makes the lens ridiculously wide in terms of fitting in a bag. It also doesn't block nearly as much light as it could/should. The solution? But another EW series hood and chop a few MM of the ends.

My first time around I went with the 24L hood because I knew between these 2 hoods they were the best solutions, and it was cheaper. It works out to be a smaller hood as it's a smaller diameter on the outside (it's sitting flat in the image above, the 24-105 hood sits on the 17-40L hood because it's wider). But it's a much tighter fit going on/off the lens.

After I'd ordered my 24L hood someone posted about the 24-105 hood and it needs much less trimming... It's more expensive but has a much smoother motion when mounting it to the lens. The second time around I went this route and the finished product is much better looking. It's a tad wider in terms of OD, but it still small enough to work easily.

Tonight I'll try to get a shot of the 24L hood (unmodified) next to the 24-105 hood so you have see how similar (or not) they are. Either way, I'd highly recommend doing this if you're handy enough to trim/sand down a hood w/o making it a mess. You get a hood that works better optically and fits in the bag when attached to the lens.

for a second I thought you were doing a Review II

well I own a 17-40 again....

you have an extra 83e you need to sell?

hrmmmmmmmmmmmm....

well I have one.
I don't need it.
but I want to keep it in case I sell the lens ever.

good thing my new copy is also sharp.

Some recent samples:

On the 5D:








On the 40D:

so my wide angle options have just changed due to having full frame. this lens seems to get good reviews by everyone here. and is only expensive, not terribly expensive like the 16-35L

is this lens wide enough to satisfy? of is the difference from 24mm to 17mm not enough, as in could i be finding myself wanting wider?

Having just bought the 24-70, I can say that, while a fantastic lens that will get a lot of use, it's often not wide enough for me. The cheaper option would be to buy the 17-40 first, then see if you bump up against the long end and have to changes lenses often. If so, then a midrange zoom might be better for you.

The 16-35 is probably not worth it--you only gain one stop and 1mm on the wide end, while losing 5mm on the long end (they come in handy sometimes), it costs twice as much, and it takes huge (82mm!) filters, which are much more expensive and hard to find. I have considered this lens a couple of times, but each time have realized that the 17-40 is a much better value, and f/4 isn't really that limiting.

In general, though, my usual lens kit is: 17-40 + 50mm f/1.4 + 70-200 f/4--that's my core, and sometimes I add the FE or flash, depending on what I'm likely to be shooting. I bought the 24-70 to go in the 50mm spot when the lights good and I need flexibility, or when I want to only carry one lens as a walkaround--I've run into situations recently where the 50 couldn't get me the framing I wanted, and I was having to change between the 17-40 and the 70-200 too much to make it enjoyable.

EDIT: I just remembered that you got the kit with the 24-105... that was a lens that I was considering as well, but ultimately I wanted the most speed I could get. However, I am pretty much limited to ISO1600, whereas you can go two stops faster, so the 24-105 should be fine except in the crappiest light. Also, you have IS, which is a big benefit for non-moving subjects. The slight bokeh advantage of f/2.8 over f/4 should not be a deciding factor, since you have 105mm to 70mm, which has an overall greater effect on background blur.

In summary, I'd keep the 24-105 and not add a 17-40 unless you find yourself bumping up against the wide end a lot and wishing you could get wider.

yeah, 16~17 is considered VERY wide. It's been the standard "wide" FL forever on FF. Remember, the 10~2x lenses are all designed for crop bodies, so the numbers sound wider, but they're just getting crops to this focal range. There are 2 exceptions to this rule that I know of though. The sigma 12-24 and the nikon 14-24. Both are VERY W I D E on FF. Like INSANE. Trust me, 17mm on FF is very wide for most people. Even for me, 12mm was too wide on FF (although that's a lens I'll eventually buy again to complement my 17-40).

As for the 16-35 -vs- 17-40? Both are fantastic lenses. But as Mark said, the 16-35 is only 1mm wider, 1 stop faster, much bigger, much heavier, and much more expensive. It's also an 82mm so filters become a PITA (more expensive, but then you're either using 2 sets or rings to make them work so it's ugly either way). I was tempted, I bought one, used it for a few months, then sold it and came back to the 17-40.

I also have a 15mm FE which is a ton of fun on FF, but that's a totally different ballgame.

thanks for the input guys. sounds like the 17-40 would most likely satisfy what i am looking for. now to save a few hundred. i have also always been tempted by a fisheye, but i think i would use the 17-40 more often.

but i need to hurry up on that saving so that i hit the rebate time frame and save that few bucks

This is exactly why I WANT FF.

Dan, FEs are tempting and cool, but it's certainly a niche lens. I'd never suggest it OVER a UWA zoom. Once you have a UWA, and still want more, then try one, but they can be over used easily.

I've wanted one for ~10 years and always heard that myself so it was always on the bottom of the list. I finally got one and I love it, but I know even I use it too much...

exactly Ben. the fish eye was actually more tempting on my crop body since it kills some of the distortion. i checked out the conversion of 10mm on crop body, obviously its about 16mm. so i think 17mm would be wide enough to satisfy.

yeah, for me a FE is ABOUT the distortion. You want just wide, FEs aren't for you. I used my FE on my cropper for 2 months as a 24mm replacement with just a bit more distortion and a bit less speed because it's all I had.

Have you used a 10mm on your cropped or 16/17mm on FF yet Dan? Like just looked through the viewfinder? I can still remember the day I got my first UWA lens back 10 years ago when I was in MT. I walked to class with it and would just look through the viewfinder then IRL with my eyes. 17mm on FF is CRAZY wide. Yes, there are even wider options as I mentioned, but 17mm is a giant step from 24mm....

i haven't looked through 17mm of full frame yet, but your lst comments are exactly what i want. plus this lens is close to my price range nd sharp as you mentioned back at the top

Dan, the other RAD thing about the 17-40 with your 24-105, is if you're handy, get a spare 24-105 hood and modify it like I showed above. That way 1 hood works with both lenses and you don't need the ridiculous hood they sell with it (keep it for resale). I suggest a second hood just so you keep both stock L hoods pristine in case you ever want to sell one.

not a bad idea at all. where is the trimming done? the "Tabs" that block light? they must be a little too big and show up in frame?

exactly. You basically just cut the entire thing down ~3mm all around.

here's some 17-40 on my 5Dii "real world" around the house high ISO usage at f/4 shots:
















the 17-40 can be fun for around the house shooting like I've been doing as it's a fun range for me (I typically shoot with my 24, so this is wider and longer). But the one issue is you'll catch different light colors in other rooms when you shoot this wide at times making WB and PP difficult to get right...

1st and 5th are a little noisy for my liking, but the others are really really good. I don't think I would be too worried about using the f/4 + 5Dii inside.

The last shot, I prefer to some of your other bath shots at f/2 with the 40D

great shots, they make me want this lens some more. after christmas i will have to reassess the budget and see what i can get away with. i just need to come up with about 200 bucks. maybe rachel will make that my birthday present in Feb. :hoping:

This lens is on my short list as soon as I go FF. I'm in the middle of selling my ef-s lenses from my xti kit, I just let the ef-s 10-22 go this morning. I really loved that lens and the 17-40 should put me right where I left off.

Those are good examples Ben for indoor f/4. Thanks for sharing.

Just got a copy of this today, can't wait to test it out on the 5dii when it comes in tomorrow I'm also planning on doing the hood mod from the 24-105L so I can share between the two.

Originally Posted by danm

great shots, they make me want this lens some more. after christmas i will have to reassess the budget and see what i can get away with. i just need to come up with about 200 bucks. maybe rachel will make that my birthday present in Feb. :hoping:

Christmas was good to me and i sold my XTi to my sister. so this lens will be mine sooner than later.

Nice!

Is anyone using a polarizing filter on their 17-40? If so which one have you liked?