Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!

Canon 17-40mm is it worth the expense

JanieB43 9 47 6 England
7 Aug 2010 3:13PM
I'm thinking of upgrading to the canon 7D from the 400D and am considering buying the 17-40mm L (I already have the sigma 10-20mm ( which I really like). I'm also considering the canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and I would appreciate any advice. My main photography is landscapes but I've recently been asked to do some wedding photography ( I intend to eventually go into freelance work ). Also would it be worth investing in some hard grads,I've got the usual cokin ND4 & ND8 - is it worth the cost for some Lee filters ?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman 14 22.1k 16 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 3:18PM
I have the 17-40L and its a good lens and pairs up with the 10-20 well. If you are heading to wedding and with landscapes as your main interest would it not be better to go 5D MKII rather than 7D?

If you never intend to go full frame it could be the 15-85 is a better choice. 70-200F4 IS is a good lens a friend has one. In that price range you may wish to think about 100-400 also a an alternative. It is what I did.
justin c 14 5.0k 36 England
7 Aug 2010 3:30PM
Both lenses are superb.
ChrisStyles 10 387 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 4:27PM
The 17-40L is a stunning lens you will not be disappointed Smile
sherlob Plus
12 2.9k 129 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 5:11PM
I love my 17-40 and use it for approx 98% of my images (using full frame). I bought mine via flea bay for a healthy reduction (380 is I remember correctly). Its built like a tank and gives unfailing performance.

I'm not sure of why you'd go this route though on a 7D when you already have at 10-20? The 10-20 will give more flexibility in terms of focal length - giving approx 16-17mm at the widest point. The 24-105mm L might be a better bet if you are after additional scope to focal length (the impact of the crop sensor would be 165mm equivilant at the top end). I've not used any of the 70-200 mm L lenses, but if I recall the reviews correctly the faster f2.8 model is much better than the f4 - although I think you'd be hard pushed to notice a difference in reality.


JanieB43 9 47 6 England
7 Aug 2010 5:33PM

Quote:would it not be better to go 5D MKII rather than 7D?

Thanks Strawman - with originally having the 400D all my present Canon lenses are EF-S fit and as far I've gathered these will not be compatable with a full fame camera such as the 50D Sad

KevSB 14 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 5:35PM
Both the 7d and 5D are demanding on quality glass so you may find your older ef-s fits lack the quality so factor that you may need to exspand your lens collection in the future anyway
DT6 9 1 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 5:38PM
I highly recommend the 17-40mm. I used to use it with crop sensor camera bodies (20D and 30D), which I found to be a little short at the wide end, but for a full frame body it's excellent.

strawman 14 22.1k 16 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 8:59PM
Jane if it helps. The 10-20 I have worked well on a 7D I tried, but then I tend to use it F8 to F11 for landscapes and its often the wide open performance where the high resolution cameras tend to spot issues. I have the 17-40 and rate it, but on Full frame it comes alive, working rather like your 10-20 does now. I was just thinking if you were upgrading for wedding and Landscape work at a professional level you may be better getting a 5D, but its a personal choice.
ade_mcfade 14 15.2k 216 England
9 Aug 2010 3:36PM
5D mark 2 and a 24-105 with a 580EX2 flash - that's not a bad combination to have as one of your wedding camera setups Smile
pulsar69 14 1.6k 6 United Kingdom
9 Aug 2010 4:14PM
I have the 17-40 and considering ditching it and putting the money to use on another lens if anyones interested in one ! < i never really get it out for weddings as I use a 24-105 , 50 and 200 prime and the 17-40 just isnt justifying bag space , it is a brilliant lens for landscapes , but to be honest my 24-105 can do a good job too and i dont make money from landscapes !
ade_mcfade 14 15.2k 216 England
9 Aug 2010 4:21PM
I've used it about 5 times at weddings

once for a family shot in a tiny room - that was funny
ripleysalien Plus
11 1.2k 11 United Kingdom
9 Aug 2010 4:26PM
I have just got a 7D and partexed the 17-40 ( not wide enough ) and the 24-105 ( not used enough ) both great lenses.
I think the 24-105 is a belting lens but I just didnt use it enough to justify bag space.
The 16-35 is supposed to be sharper than the 17-40 but on a crop frame camera I dont think that matters.
I would plump for the 24-105 if it was me then your covered from 10 ( 17mm ) to 105 ( 160ish )
I also use the 10-20 sigma and the Canon 60mm Macro, both EF-S with no quality problems at all.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.