Canon 17 40L Vs 28/40/50/100mm primes

I bought the Canon 17 40L to see how it compares to my primes.

The 17-40mm, is as sharp at f5.6 and above, except the corners. The colours out of the camera are slightly better but the primes can be adjusted to match.

The focussing is slightly better with the primes and even though the 17-40L is a light zoom, its still significantly bigger than the primes and harder, or I feel less inclined to use it in a busy city than the primes.

The f4 doesn't make much of a difference but just knowing I can go down to 2.8 or below is nice along with the IS on the 28mm.

I think as a general purpose lens, the 28mm is better as I don't really use below that and I just like how small the 28mm is.

I think it comes down to which do I use more and have more fun using and to me the primes more fun where as the 17-40 is better for when I'm looking to take snap shots rather than think about the photography

I use the 17-40 as a do it all travel lens that I can beat up a bit without feeling guilty.  It's fairly light weight and takes abuse well.  Mine has been through a lot and is still going strong.

I've done a few trips with just my 40mm pancake to reduce weight even more, but found myself wishing for the ability to get those wide angle focal lengths.  Similar, if I were to take a compact wide angle, I'd miss being able to get the same portrait and DOF shots I can get at 40mm.

cantdrive55 wrote:

I use the 17-40 as a do it all travel lens that I can beat up a bit without feeling guilty. It's fairly light weight and takes abuse well. Mine has been through a lot and is still going strong.

I've done a few trips with just my 40mm pancake to reduce weight even more, but found myself wishing for the ability to get those wide angle focal lengths. Similar, if I were to take a compact wide angle, I'd miss being able to get the same portrait and DOF shots I can get at 40mm.

I would have thought that for the primes you list, the EF 24-105L would be a better option - the original as the budget option (preferably a later copy to avoid the ribbon issue of the earlier ones) or the Mk ii as the "current" option.

Either of them  has generally better IQ than the 17-40L, and especially so on the edges/corners, both have IS (which the 17-40L doesn't) and obviously covers the 35-100mm range that you list MUCH better

The downside is obviously size / weight, but if you are looking to "replace" 4 primes (listed) with one zoom, the zoom is a whole lot lighter and smaller.

Andy01 wrote:

cantdrive55 wrote:

I use the 17-40 as a do it all travel lens that I can beat up a bit without feeling guilty. It's fairly light weight and takes abuse well. Mine has been through a lot and is still going strong.

I've done a few trips with just my 40mm pancake to reduce weight even more, but found myself wishing for the ability to get those wide angle focal lengths. Similar, if I were to take a compact wide angle, I'd miss being able to get the same portrait and DOF shots I can get at 40mm.

I would have thought that for the primes you list, the EF 24-105L would be a better option - the original as the budget option (preferably a later copy to avoid the ribbon issue of the earlier ones) or the Mk ii as the "current" option.

Either of them has generally better IQ than the 17-40L, and especially so on the edges/corners, both have IS (which the 17-40L doesn't) and obviously covers the 35-100mm range that you list MUCH better

The downside is obviously size / weight, but if you are looking to "replace" 4 primes (listed) with one zoom, the zoom is a whole lot lighter and smaller.

Not sure if you quoted the right person with that reply.  I'm not looking to replace any of my primes.

I'm sure the 24-105L is a great travel lens.  I just always ended up with the 17-40 on my camera if I had to choose one lens.  When I bought it I thought it would be a niche lens that I'd use for specific wide angle stuff.  Pretty soon I realized it was pretty much attached to my camera and covered all the bases when traveling except for distant wildlife.

I've just bought the RF 24-70 and am trying to get used to carrying around that range zoom again.  Nice to have the extra reach but I may have to face it that I'm a wide angle photographer.  That thing is also so expensive I'm afraid to actually put it to the test on the road.

cantdrive55 wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

cantdrive55 wrote:

I use the 17-40 as a do it all travel lens that I can beat up a bit without feeling guilty. It's fairly light weight and takes abuse well. Mine has been through a lot and is still going strong.

I've done a few trips with just my 40mm pancake to reduce weight even more, but found myself wishing for the ability to get those wide angle focal lengths. Similar, if I were to take a compact wide angle, I'd miss being able to get the same portrait and DOF shots I can get at 40mm.

I would have thought that for the primes you list, the EF 24-105L would be a better option - the original as the budget option (preferably a later copy to avoid the ribbon issue of the earlier ones) or the Mk ii as the "current" option.

Either of them has generally better IQ than the 17-40L, and especially so on the edges/corners, both have IS (which the 17-40L doesn't) and obviously covers the 35-100mm range that you list MUCH better

The downside is obviously size / weight, but if you are looking to "replace" 4 primes (listed) with one zoom, the zoom is a whole lot lighter and smaller.

Not sure if you quoted the right person with that reply. I'm not looking to replace any of my primes.

I'm sure the 24-105L is a great travel lens. I just always ended up with the 17-40 on my camera if I had to choose one lens. When I bought it I thought it would be a niche lens that I'd use for specific wide angle stuff. Pretty soon I realized it was pretty much attached to my camera and covered all the bases when traveling except for distant wildlife.

I've just bought the RF 24-70 and am trying to get used to carrying around that range zoom again. Nice to have the extra reach but I may have to face it that I'm a wide angle photographer. That thing is also so expensive I'm afraid to actually put it to the test on the road.

Sorry, I didn't. I pressed "Reply to thread" and somehow it quoted the previous post. I was replying to the OP.