Much better than I anticipated

I got my 17-40mm recently 2nd hand from an online seller for around €470 - a decent price considering it's usually €700-800 in Ireland. I got it to replace my 10-22mm, which I recently sold along with my 7D, and to further my IR photography with my 6D. I originally was going to get the 16-35mm f4L IS, but there was not enough information on it's IR performance, and previous 16-35mm lenses are known to be particularly bad for IR.

When it arrived it was in immaculate condition, and apart from the 3rd party lens cap it looked brand new. No scratches or scuffs. Nothing. It's date code shows it was made in 2005 and the seller claimed it was used, so I honestly was expecting to see at least some wear and tear. There wasn't even the usual discolouration on the rubber!

I anticipated the 17-40mm to not be the sharpest L lens out there according to reviews and tests, but I have been impressed with mine. Results are really sharp wide open on all focal lengths, and even the corners are not bad which is unusual. My previous 10-22mm was much worse in comparison. Perhaps I just managed to get a good copy.

IR performance is the same - I don't get hotspots and is sharp throughout. I also like that it includes an IR indicator on the focus distance screen, which allows me to adjust it without guessing or trial and error.

The only criticism I'd give is that is has obvious barrel distortion at 17mm, much more so compared to my 10-22mm. Not a huge issue though since it's easily fixed in lightroom.
Overall, thoroughly enjoying this lens!

My experience with the 17-40/4L is very similar. Because I am not too much into ultra-wide-angle-stuff, I decided to get a used 17-40/4L (for less than €400,- on eBay). Looks and works like new.

The center is tack sharp on all apertures. The corners are not as sharp, even when opening up the aperture, but I don't care that much. Colors and contrast are top notch.

It's fairly small and very light, another plus.

I don't know if I would have bought it if I were a full-time landscape photographer, but for what I do with it, it's perfect and I even consider it cheap (per typical used price) for what it delivers.

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

I got my 17-40mm recently 2nd hand from an online seller for around €470 - a decent price considering it's usually €700-800 in Ireland. I got it to replace my 10-22mm, which I recently sold along with my 7D, and to further my IR photography with my 6D. I originally was going to get the 16-35mm f4L IS, but there was not enough information on it's IR performance, and previous 16-35mm lenses are known to be particularly bad for IR.

When it arrived it was in immaculate condition, and apart from the 3rd party lens cap it looked brand new. No scratches or scuffs. Nothing. It's date code shows it was made in 2005 and the seller claimed it was used, so I honestly was expecting to see at least some wear and tear. There wasn't even the usual discolouration on the rubber!

I anticipated the 17-40mm to not be the sharpest L lens out there according to reviews and tests, but I have been impressed with mine. Results are really sharp wide open on all focal lengths, and even the corners are not bad which is unusual. My previous 10-22mm was much worse in comparison. Perhaps I just managed to get a good copy.

IR performance is the same - I don't get hotspots and is sharp throughout. I also like that it includes an IR indicator on the focus distance screen, which allows me to adjust it without guessing or trial and error.

The only criticism I'd give is that is has obvious barrel distortion at 17mm, much more so compared to my 10-22mm. Not a huge issue though since it's easily fixed in lightroom.
Overall, thoroughly enjoying this lens!

It gets a mediocre press that it doesn't deserve

From what I seen online, it's not the best lens. Plenty of tests out there shot that. I knew this but it's currently the cheapest and best option for IR photography in terms of UWA lenses for Canon. Just surprised mine turned out to be a decent copy.

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

I got my 17-40mm recently 2nd hand from an online seller for around €470 - a decent price considering it's usually €700-800 in Ireland. I got it to replace my 10-22mm, which I recently sold along with my 7D, and to further my IR photography with my 6D. I originally was going to get the 16-35mm f4L IS, but there was not enough information on it's IR performance, and previous 16-35mm lenses are known to be particularly bad for IR.

When it arrived it was in immaculate condition, and apart from the 3rd party lens cap it looked brand new. No scratches or scuffs. Nothing. It's date code shows it was made in 2005 and the seller claimed it was used, so I honestly was expecting to see at least some wear and tear. There wasn't even the usual discolouration on the rubber!

I anticipated the 17-40mm to not be the sharpest L lens out there according to reviews and tests, but I have been impressed with mine. Results are really sharp wide open on all focal lengths, and even the corners are not bad which is unusual. My previous 10-22mm was much worse in comparison. Perhaps I just managed to get a good copy.

IR performance is the same - I don't get hotspots and is sharp throughout. I also like that it includes an IR indicator on the focus distance screen, which allows me to adjust it without guessing or trial and error.

The only criticism I'd give is that is has obvious barrel distortion at 17mm, much more so compared to my 10-22mm. Not a huge issue though since it's easily fixed in lightroom.
Overall, thoroughly enjoying this lens!

It gets a mediocre press that it doesn't deserve

From what I seen online, it's not the best lens. Plenty of tests out there shot that. I knew this but it's currently the cheapest and best option for IR photography in terms of UWA lenses for Canon. Just surprised mine turned out to be a decent copy.

If you can't get decent images out of a 17-40L it's not the lens' fault

I don't think I'm having that issue at all.

shleed wrote:

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

I got my 17-40mm recently 2nd hand from an online seller for around €470 - a decent price considering it's usually €700-800 in Ireland. I got it to replace my 10-22mm, which I recently sold along with my 7D, and to further my IR photography with my 6D. I originally was going to get the 16-35mm f4L IS, but there was not enough information on it's IR performance, and previous 16-35mm lenses are known to be particularly bad for IR.

When it arrived it was in immaculate condition, and apart from the 3rd party lens cap it looked brand new. No scratches or scuffs. Nothing. It's date code shows it was made in 2005 and the seller claimed it was used, so I honestly was expecting to see at least some wear and tear. There wasn't even the usual discolouration on the rubber!

I anticipated the 17-40mm to not be the sharpest L lens out there according to reviews and tests, but I have been impressed with mine. Results are really sharp wide open on all focal lengths, and even the corners are not bad which is unusual. My previous 10-22mm was much worse in comparison. Perhaps I just managed to get a good copy.

IR performance is the same - I don't get hotspots and is sharp throughout. I also like that it includes an IR indicator on the focus distance screen, which allows me to adjust it without guessing or trial and error.

The only criticism I'd give is that is has obvious barrel distortion at 17mm, much more so compared to my 10-22mm. Not a huge issue though since it's easily fixed in lightroom.
Overall, thoroughly enjoying this lens!

It gets a mediocre press that it doesn't deserve

From what I seen online, it's not the best lens. Plenty of tests out there shot that. I knew this but it's currently the cheapest and best option for IR photography in terms of UWA lenses for Canon. Just surprised mine turned out to be a decent copy.

If you can't get decent images out of a 17-40L it's not the lens' fault

I don't think I'm having that issue at all.

You can certainly get a decent image out of a 17-40, it's just that you can get an excellent image out of a 16-35 F2.8L II, and an even better one out of a 16-35 F4L.

I was never able to get decent edge performance out of the 17-40, so I returned it.

I've had the 17-40 for years, but never been outstandingly happy with it. Stopped down to f8 or f11, and it's really rather good - so it's been great for landscapes, and if that's what someone wants it for, I would recommend it.  At wider apertures, it's nothing special. So it's a bit of a one-trick pony; does that trick very nicely, but is not an all-rounder like the 16-35 f4 L IS.

stratobill wrote:

shleed wrote:

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

bigdaddave wrote:

shleed wrote:

I got my 17-40mm recently 2nd hand from an online seller for around €470 - a decent price considering it's usually €700-800 in Ireland. I got it to replace my 10-22mm, which I recently sold along with my 7D, and to further my IR photography with my 6D. I originally was going to get the 16-35mm f4L IS, but there was not enough information on it's IR performance, and previous 16-35mm lenses are known to be particularly bad for IR.

When it arrived it was in immaculate condition, and apart from the 3rd party lens cap it looked brand new. No scratches or scuffs. Nothing. It's date code shows it was made in 2005 and the seller claimed it was used, so I honestly was expecting to see at least some wear and tear. There wasn't even the usual discolouration on the rubber!

I anticipated the 17-40mm to not be the sharpest L lens out there according to reviews and tests, but I have been impressed with mine. Results are really sharp wide open on all focal lengths, and even the corners are not bad which is unusual. My previous 10-22mm was much worse in comparison. Perhaps I just managed to get a good copy.

IR performance is the same - I don't get hotspots and is sharp throughout. I also like that it includes an IR indicator on the focus distance screen, which allows me to adjust it without guessing or trial and error.

The only criticism I'd give is that is has obvious barrel distortion at 17mm, much more so compared to my 10-22mm. Not a huge issue though since it's easily fixed in lightroom.
Overall, thoroughly enjoying this lens!

It gets a mediocre press that it doesn't deserve

From what I seen online, it's not the best lens. Plenty of tests out there shot that. I knew this but it's currently the cheapest and best option for IR photography in terms of UWA lenses for Canon. Just surprised mine turned out to be a decent copy.

If you can't get decent images out of a 17-40L it's not the lens' fault

I don't think I'm having that issue at all.

You can certainly get a decent image out of a 17-40, it's just that you can get an excellent image out of a 16-35 F2.8L II, and an even better one out of a 16-35 F4L.

I was never able to get decent edge performance out of the 17-40, so I returned it.

The 16-35mm lenses are crap for IR, though. That's the entire reason for getting the 17-40mm.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I've had the 17-40 for years, but never been outstandingly happy with it. Stopped down to f8 or f11, and it's really rather good - so it's been great for landscapes, and if that's what someone wants it for, I would recommend it. At wider apertures, it's nothing special. So it's a bit of a one-trick pony; does that trick very nicely, but is not an all-rounder like the 16-35 f4 L IS.

It is certainly for landscape purposes, and IR work. Canon's 16-35mm lenses tend to have severe hotspots in IR, which is a much bigger issue than edge sharpness for me. I couldn't find information on whether the 16-35 f4L IS was good for IR or not. I could have tested, but it's difficult since IR performance varies a lot more than visible light in terms of weather etc.

For normal purposes I'd agree with you and would have got the 16-35 f4L IS instead, mainly for low light work. But again, the type of photography I do often warrants a tripod since exposures can be in the minutes.

shleed wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I've had the 17-40 for years, but never been outstandingly happy with it. Stopped down to f8 or f11, and it's really rather good - so it's been great for landscapes, and if that's what someone wants it for, I would recommend it. At wider apertures, it's nothing special. So it's a bit of a one-trick pony; does that trick very nicely, but is not an all-rounder like the 16-35 f4 L IS.

It is certainly for landscape purposes, and IR work. Canon's 16-35mm lenses tend to have severe hotspots in IR, which is a much bigger issue than edge sharpness for me. I couldn't find information on whether the 16-35 f4L IS was good for IR or not. I could have tested, but it's difficult since IR performance varies a lot more than visible light in terms of weather etc.

For normal purposes I'd agree with you and would have got the 16-35 f4L IS instead, mainly for low light work. But again, the type of photography I do often warrants a tripod since exposures can be in the minutes.

Both of my IR DSLRs are APS-C, so I tend to use my 15-85 mostly with them, so hadn't spotted that.

Rock and Rollei wrote:

shleed wrote:

Rock and Rollei wrote:

I've had the 17-40 for years, but never been outstandingly happy with it. Stopped down to f8 or f11, and it's really rather good - so it's been great for landscapes, and if that's what someone wants it for, I would recommend it. At wider apertures, it's nothing special. So it's a bit of a one-trick pony; does that trick very nicely, but is not an all-rounder like the 16-35 f4 L IS.

It is certainly for landscape purposes, and IR work. Canon's 16-35mm lenses tend to have severe hotspots in IR, which is a much bigger issue than edge sharpness for me. I couldn't find information on whether the 16-35 f4L IS was good for IR or not. I could have tested, but it's difficult since IR performance varies a lot more than visible light in terms of weather etc.

For normal purposes I'd agree with you and would have got the 16-35 f4L IS instead, mainly for low light work. But again, the type of photography I do often warrants a tripod since exposures can be in the minutes.

Both of my IR DSLRs are APS-C, so I tend to use my 15-85 mostly with them, so hadn't spotted that.

Depends on the lens design. Most these days are optimised only for visible light.

I used to use my 10-22mm for IR on my 7D and 40D, and it did the job well in the sense that it wouldn't produce hotspots at small apertures. The problem I had with it however was the severe chromatic aberration that would only appear in IR. This was made worse when I used it on my 6D after doing modifying it for FF use, as the severe chromatic aberration in IR was amplified even more. There was also a lot of ghosting.

My 17-40mm exhibits similar chromatic aberration in IR, but nowhere to the same extent. The results are sharp but I've yet to do more than test photos with it in IR light at this point due to the abysmal weather conditions. Hotspots are nonexistent no matter what aperture I use, which is brilliant. It's in line with the rest of my lenses in this regard.

bigdaddave wrote:

stratobill wrote:

You can certainly get a decent image out of a 17-40, it's just that you can get an excellent image out of a 16-35 F2.8L II, and an even better one out of a 16-35 F4L.

I was never able to get decent edge performance out of the 17-40, so I returned it.

Stopped down there is virtually no difference between a 17-40L and the 16-35 IS, I know because I own both

Wide open there isn't much difference, apart from increased softness at the extreme corner and edge sides of the image. Here's a test shot of mine wide open at 17mm: