Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ?

[pxlbarrel]

I was getting a bit annoyed with the lack of sharpness that my Rebel XT kit lens was giving me so I headed off to the camera store to get one of the highly praised but reasonably priced 50 mm f1.8 lenses.

I came out with the rather more highly priced 17-40 mm f4 USM lens instead. I don't know what happened!!! I guess I liked the idea of still having a zoom lens for everyday photos. But holy nuts...it cost more than what I paid for my Rebel.

Somebody please tell me that I didn't get suckered. I'm heading off to Niagara Falls this weekend so I can give it a workout then but I'm gonna be really disappointed (and even more annoyed) if the sharpness is not very much improved from the kit lens.

It's a mite heavier than the kit lens too.

 

[Furgus]

Here are some pics from people on Flickr. Not a bad looking lens, if I was a canon guy

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM&w=all

I am looking for a wide angle lens, but the wife is having other thoughts about that. Want the Sigma 10-20mm. Suppose to be very good on the Nikon I have.

 

[TwoOldPoohs]

Congratulations! The 17-40mm f/4L is a highly regarded lens. I opted for the Sigma 18-55mm f/2.8 due to the price, but often wish I had gotten the 17-40mm instead.

 

[Metallicat]

My DD has that lens and loves it. I don't think she would mind if I posted a picture she took.

 

[Metallicat]

one more taken with the 17-40 L lens

 

[boBQuincy]

The 17-40 design is getting along in years but is still a very sharp lens. You are not likely to be disappointed, this is quite a jump in quality over the kit lenses.

Test the lens and if it is not as sharp as expected don't hesitate to send it back to Canon (or return it to your dealer if it is still new) for adjustment.

Just be careful, once you start down the "L" path, forever will it dominate your destiny (and your credit card).

 

[0bli0]

it's by far the most popular L lens. i don't own one personally, but i've used one on a few occasions. obviously, primes are generally much sharper than zooms, but this one is generally sharp wide open. there are thousands of great examples on pbase - just search by camera and choose this lens

a word of warning: once you have a nice lens like an 'L', you tend to be much picker about your other lenses.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Thanks very much for the reassurances!! It's a weight off my mind...if not my bank account.

I used the lens yesterday to take a group shot at work. I was a bit disappointed at the sharpness when I looked at it in the camera but I kept telling myself...it'll look better in the computer. And...perhaps not surprisingly but it's always surprising to me, it did. I think the photo would have been better had I been able to organize the group shot better and had more light. But...so far so good with the lens.

It looks like it might rain this weekend so testing in Niagara Falls might be cancelled.

Oh 0bli0, do you mind if I pick your brain next year about Tokyo's Disney parks?

 

[timned88]

the kit lens is a decent lens if you only consider the price....$100. if you factor in anything else, it's pure junk. it's poorly built and not sharp at all. i sold all of mine on ebay as soon as i got them. a $100 lens is not going to be a good with the exception of the canon 50 f1.8. there is a reason a good lens costs at least $400.

not only did you not get suckered, you got a great lens. i agree, once you start getting better lenses, you will never put junky ones on your rig ever again.

 

[boBQuincy]

Although the 18-55 kit lens is a plastic (not the lens elements, they are glass), cheaply-made, low-end lens, it can produce some really good results. Before blaming fuzzy images on the 18-55, check out the rest of the image making chain.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522&highlight=18-55

Btw, here's one of my favorite tips for sharper photos:
use a camera support.

*Nothing* else will provide that much improvement for anywhere near the price.

 

[pxlbarrel]

My problem with the camera since I purchased it in last December was that my indoor shots were mostly too soft for my liking. My outdoor, full sunlight photos were usually just fine. Indoor photos were crap ... even with adequate light. The photos I took with my G5 were much sharper than what I was getting with my Rebel. Not all were not to my liking but enough to make me question the camera and lens. I took some recent photos that turned out fine but I was usually shooting at f11 or higher...even indoors or night shots outside which meant pretty long shutter speeds (and yes, used a tripod for those photos). This also meant it would be really frustrating when I tried to get photos with sharp focus in the foreground and soft behind.

So...we'll try this new one out and see what happens.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Keep in mind that sharpness depends on a lot of things.

First, most lenses are sharper when stopped down from their maximum aperture. An f4.0 lens will usually be sharper at f5.6 and sharper still at f8.0. Because of diffraction problems, sharpness starts to decline after about f11.0.

When shooting with a wide aperture, shallow DOF issues can cause sharpness problems. It's not uncommon with longer lenses to see the tip of someone's nose sharply in focus with their eyes slightly blurred. Some cameras have a tendency to focus before (front focus) or behind (back focus) their subjects and need to be calibrated.

Long shutter speeds usually mean more camera shake and more motion blur if your subject moves. A tripod helps significantly with this problem.

If the shot happens to be between about 1/8 to 2 seconds, you can also have sharpness problems from the vibration induced by the mirror moving when you take the shot. This even happens when you use a tripod. To get around this problem, you need to either use the timer or mirror lockup.

Some tripods are also not up to the job. If they aren't sufficiently heavy and stiff, they can transmit vibrations to the camera from wind, loud noises, or other sources of movement. It's not uncommon to see someone set everything up very carefully on their tripod and then mash the shutter button down with their finger, shaking everything in the process.

With the exception of the really soft super-zoom lenses, most cases of soft photos I see are the result of poor technique rather than poor optics.

 

[boBQuincy]

I agree with Mark's post.

One other possibility, Canon occasionally lets a lens slip out that is not quite adjusted properly. It even happens on their high $$$ "L" series, my 24-105 is at Canon's service center for the 2nd time, for a lack of sharpness.

With the many thousands of kit lenses Canon cranks out it is possible yours is a little out of adjustment.

 

[pxlbarrel]

I'm know about depth of field issues with regards to f-stops. That's why I'd like to be able to take some photos with the aperture wide open so that my subject is focused and the background is blurred. It's hard to do that when everything is out of focus when it's wide open.

When one takes a photo at f14 at a shutter speed of 1/80, I expect it to be sharp and when it isn't...I start to question the camera, the lens and such. I'm a pretty steady person when it comes to holding a camera and have been known to take photos at 1/30 with no problems whatsoever...as witnessed by some of my G5 shots.

I just took my camera out with new lens out into the forest behind my house to do some test shots. I am now convinced it has absolutely nothing to do with my lens choice (too bad I didn't discover this before I plunked down $900), but there is something wrong with the camera itself. When the focus locks onto something that is basically filling most of the screen (ie, there should be no problem for it to figure out what to focus us) and it's still soft at f10 (and in fact, looks the same as if I had used f7 and f4), I have to figure that the camera is not focusing on what it's supposed to be focusing on.

Is it possible I purchased 3 lenses with problems? (the kit lens, the 70-300mm and the 17-40 mm???) Or is it more likely the body?

Not all the photos I've taken are soft...just an alarmingly large number of them. Ironically, some of my best night shots with this camera are sharp...and they're hand held shots. I just don't know anymore. I emailed Canon Canada to see if they have a solution for me. The camera and every Canon lens I own are still under warranty...for another few months. I'm at my wits end with this thing and am ready to go back to my G5 if it weren't for the amount of money I've spent on this thing.

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon occasionally lets a few camera bodies slip out that are not properly adjusted for focus. If you search on this web site for "front focus" and "back focus" you should find many posts on the subject.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9

It got to be somewhat of a joke, what with everyone taking photos of angled rulers to find if their focus was off (most weren't).

If all your lenses are soft, I would say it's definitely time to check the camera body! At f/8 almost any lens should be pretty good.
You could try a series, one image at auto focus, then manually focus and take some at a bit closer and a bit farther, and see if there is any difference.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Canon occasionally lets a few camera bodies slip out that are not properly adjusted for focus. If you search on this web site for "front focus" and "back focus" you should find many posts on the subject.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9

It got to be somewhat of a joke, what with everyone taking photos of angled rulers to find if their focus was off (most weren't).

If all your lenses are soft, I would say it's definitely time to check the camera body! At f/8 almost any lens should be pretty good.
You could try a series, one image at auto focus, then manually focus and take some at a bit closer and a bit farther, and see if there is any difference.

LOL...I saw those rulers....but I was too lazy to do the test. I took a photo of my gumbo at Blue Bayou in August. Centre spot focus...so, unless I was terribly drunk on my joy of being in DL, I'm pretty sure I was aiming at the centre of the cup of gumbo. The gumbo is out of focus but the spoon on the right hand side, a bit behind the gumbo is in perfect focus. LOL I don't do angled rulers but angled gumbo...that's more appealing.

Ah well, I've put the camera down for the day and I'm gonna have a self-pity party tonight (ie...gorge myself with forbidden pizza.)

I'll update you guys with what Canon says (if they get back to me.)

 

[timned88]

BTW, the 17-40 f/4L is on my next to buy list. just got the 24-105L and 70-200 f/4L so next up is this little beauty. ef-s 10-22 is up on ebay right now, as a matter of fact.