Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Now i find i am pixel peeping, i just looked at some shots taken with my 17-40L and think they look a little soft, maybe i have a bad copy or maybe i'm just being over critical since i have just been looking at lenses. Is there a noticeable difference between fixed lenses and modern zooms? i was on the verge of buying three fixed wide angles instead of using the 17-40L but that works out expensive and would be heavy to carry around.
If i was to look at fixed lenses, is there a best range i.e sigma, tamron etc?
Terry.
Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...
Quote: Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...
are you saying i am a **** photographer then? 
just kidding!
i've only been out with the lens one time so far so you may well be right and i just need to get used to it, after all a tool is only as good as the person using it.
Terry.
I don't find the 17-40 absolutely perfect by any means (if there is such a thing when it comes to lenses - they're all a compromise to some extent) but it is definitely capable of some great shots. As with most zooms, if you're pixel peeping, you will notice some colour fringes (chromatic aberrations) and corner softness at certain focal lengths and apertures. You learn how to work round those with a combination of in camera technique (basically taking the time to learn how the lens performs at different settings) and standard corrections during raw conversion to remove the fringing, etc.
The results when compared with the Zeiss prime above which costs twice the price and is able to be more optimised for a fixed focal length aren't really a surprise 
Quote: Look at your technique first Terry, that lens is a legendary performer in the right hands...
Fully agree
A lot of Canon photographers seem to use the Nikon 14-24mm with an adaptor but, having said that, I believe that the most common cause of "softness" in photographs (especially if it seems evident across the entire image) is camera shake. That's why many serious landscape photographers always use a very sturdy tripod as a matter of course.
.
I used to own a Canon 17-40 f/4L and found it was a stunning performer.
Quote: i've often said that some (after market) companies can at least rival the main companies in the field.
I cant say thats surprising as the 17-40L has been out for years, that in it self must say something. I went through the pixel peeping period and you know what, ignore it and take pictures. Im impressed with the Tamron 18-270 being reviewed on this site (and viewed at Focus) except for the rubbish lens creep although it depends how many floor pictures you take above the 18mm lock.
I first purchased the sigma 17-70, exchanged for the 17-40L thinking it would be better. Only to find no real difference, only a massive reduction in versatility.
The person behind the lens, what you yourself get out of photography and the versatility you want from a lens are more important.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
Olympus 'Portraiture' Competition - Win £1000 Worth Of Gear!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
This month, to celebrate the launch of Olympus' new micro site Olympus Image Space, Olympus are giving you the chance to win £1000 worth of Olympus gear!...
Featured e2 Photo
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
