Great review. There’s a couple of things I like a lot about the 17-40 4.0: (1) very balanced feel along with a Canon body, (2) low weight and size for carrying it everyday in my backpack, cause it’s a great focal length for street photography (all the other ultra wide Canon zooms are bigger and heavier), and (3) this lens distortion is super cool for creating dynamics at wide angles. I’m keeping it.
Yes, that is a friend's lens, he's got that thing for blacking out all colors, logos etc. 😀 This review was waiting to be edited even before I started working in the camera store.
Appreciate the HONEST REVIEWS! I like the way you review lenses by using them the way most people use them and that's to take pictures. I love photography, I love my Canon 70D, 6D and 5Ds and my lenses are the 35 f/2 IS, 40 f/2.8 STM, 50 f/1.8 STM, 85 f/1.8 USM. 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. I buy gear on a tight budget and over a long period of time and use them forever. Is the 16-35 better than the 17-40? After watching this review it obviously is, but is it so much better that I need to replace my 17-40? Probably not, most of my photography is done with my 35 f/2 IS and 24-105 f/4L IS with either the 6D or 5Ds. The 5Ds is a recent purchase, Canon discounted it to $1299 and I lusted after one for years but could never afford it but at that price I bought it. In a few years I'll make the transition to the R5 but until then it's EF lenses like the 17-40 and my older EF bodies. If you don't do video do you really need a mirrorless body? Something you have to remember is the 16-35 is 11 years newer with better optical technology incorporated in the lens which translates to a better lens. I'd be very disappointed if the 16-35 wasn't better than the 17-40 in every way.
DANG! Thanks for this breakdown bud. I've been struggling on deciding if its worth buying the new Canon 14-35 f4 L lens for my EOS R. I've been rocking the 24-105 f4 L lens and its great, but I still need that extra ULTRA WIDE angle for mainly my golf vlogs and vlogging. Nice vid man, helps a ton!
My 17-40 is pretty soft on my 7D Mark II as well on the edges and corners. Best is to choose f11 on APS-C. On Full Frame f14 and f16 are sharpest in the corners on my copy. Now it’s on eBay and I’m very very happy with my new 16-35 f4
Odlicni opisi , uzeo sam 5D classic mislim da je bio tvoj opis isto , i sad gledam da uzmem neki objektiv , imam yongnuo 50 1.8, ok za svakodnevno slikanje , al kvalitet slike nije nesto . Koji bi mi preporucio objektiv za najklasicnije kit objektiv primene , imajuci budzet na umu . Nisam profesionalni fotograf porodicno samo pa 1000evra ne dolazi u obzir za sada .
Seriously great review man! Quick and to the point with great facts and examples. Keep it up! Made sure to use your link, hope it worked and gave you some cash so you can keep doing more of these.
Great review, thanks! I have had my eye on the 17-40 for a while but was concerned about my 2 late model 5D sensors outresolving it. I have my eye on an EOS 1V though and I am sure it will perform brillantly on a 5D1…
Excellent video. What is up with the L series lens without a red ring? I picked up an older 17-35 f/2.8L USM and it is still my favorite lens. Given the choice between the 16-35 and the 17-40, I would choose the 16-35 because of the image quality and the IS. As for gell filters, my 17-35 has the behind the lens holder. Only reason I haven't used them was because I couldn't find them. I recently found some on line and will be checking it out.
This is a get what you pay for situation. Also, the 17-40 is an older lens that has undergone no updates. That said, the 17-40 performs reasonably well.
I am trying to go from a 17-40 that I use for landscapes to some sort of Prime ( 17 - 28 ). I would be very interested to hear what primes you are using. Thanks.
Very nice video and useful information, Please could you guide, I am stuck between 17-40mm and 16-35mm, I want to use it with canon 5d iv,..whihc one will give better performance with this full-frame camera?
In my country (Bulgaria) the difference is less than 250 euro. If buying new, I see no reason to even consider the 17-40. P.S. as an addition, you can test how much noise they make when focusing. With modern cameras having such nice video features....
Really great test, thanks! 17-40 seems more punchy, more 3D yo my eyes, thanks perhaps to its lower element count, and its whites are clean and properly white whereas the 16-35 seems to have a red or magenta tint (most visible in whites). If I had an 80D I'd go for the 17-40 in a heartbeat as the horrible corner CA and the vignetting would probably be excluded from the APS-C sensor area, making a great 27-64mm zoom ;)
Mam obydwa i na minus 16-35 vs starszej 17-40 to 16- 35 ma winietowanie, dystorsje i żenujące odblaski jak i gorszą ostrość no sorry ale przepłaciłem za jedną działkę dwukrotnie... bez jaj ale dałem się nabić w butelkę
