Feedback on the EF 17-40/4 "L" for film ?
I'm thinking of extending my EOS kit a bit, and was wondering how said lens performs on film ? My understanding is that it's fairly recent and designed for D*****L but I'm only a film user...
Thanks in advance
Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast (Oscar Wilde)
My APUG Blog
I've used it for both color and B&W, works just wonderful, sharp, light, very wide, good contrast etc, no problem using it with film at all.
Excellent optic but be aware of distortion at both ends of it's range.
Obviously this is more noticeable at the wide end.
Careful composition avoiding straight elements near the periphery of the frame and it is okay.
My copy is okay at F/4 but by F/8 is really wows you.
My favourite lens of the entire EOS system. Wonderful contrast, sharp enough, light, reasonably small, very well built, great AF, and relatively affordable (for an L lens). I also love how it focuses really close (0.28m/11")- try that with an RF or with the average 24/28-70/80mm SLR lens.
Superb lens, excellent value for money.
Only minus is indeed the distortion, it bugs me now and then for horizons- nothing terrible though.
I've been using newer L glass on my 35mm EOS system no problems, being the 24-105/4L and 70-200/4L IS. You should be fine with the 17-40, if anything the newer d*****l lenses would be better for film since their coated to minimize reflections created by the sensor, which film does not have as much of an issue with.
5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B&L 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 5.6 Symmar in a Synchro Compur
RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
Random 35mm stuff
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The EF 17-40 f4L is an excellent multi-purpose optic, only that the extreme 17mm end can be difficult to work with from a compositional standpoint and its non-rectilinear design means verticals can give trouble once tilting the camera is introduced. It is not a digital lens (though it can be used on digital bodies), nor is it a recent lens, having been around for something like 10 years now. Contrast is strong and uniform across its range and in my long experience (since 1998) the best images are found at f8, but it also delivers wide open at f4. I have several friends who have seen the images I have had printed and framed (Ilfochromes) from this lens and have subsequently bought one.
I am not aware that digital-optimized Canon lenses in the EOS range will work on the film EOS bodies — due to the structure of the flange/bayonet, electronics and especially metering control.
Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 04-16-2012 at 05:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Somewhat confusing statement there. The 17-40L was introduced in May 2003. I suppose what you mean to say is that, generally speaking, lenses perform best at f/8, but that this particular lens does well at f/4 too.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
I second that impression BTW, although I usually stop it down to f/5.6, where my sample improves by a visible amount, especially at the long end. The performance improvement going from f/5.6 to f/8 seems much smaller.
I had my hands on this lens long, long before May 2003.
In my work there is no need to exploit any potential, real or otherwise, of using this or other L-series lenses at full aperture.
It is a good lens for the smaller sensor digital bodies but I never liked it with film. The corners were really weak on the wide end and it suffered from pretty bad diffraction once past f/11. I have had more than a few negs ruined from these problems. I finally sold it when I left digital behind since it served no real purpose with film. In other words, I wouldn't recommend it.
By the way, it did come out in 2003.
sandermarijn is correct, the 17-40 was introduced first time in 2003 (May)
Are you sure you are not talking about the 17-35 Poisson Du Jour? That lens was introduced in 1996...
Anyway, it's a great lens and the "digital adjustments" that were made, was that the coating was altered to reduce reflections from the sensor back trough the lens, it doesn't matter for film use. (I use it a lot with landscapes and Velvia on my Canon 1V).
M. Lointain, looks like you got a dud, the 17-40 is only surpassed by the 16-35 F2.8 L II, the corners on mine are sharp, both on my film body and on my 1ds mk II, no visible diffraction even down to f16 on either camera.