Posted by Pedro Bento on December 23, 2008 at 5:41 AM
Hello,
I know some of you are now using this combo (Canon 5D MKII + Canon 17-40 L). How do you feel regarding image quality generated by this 21 MP sensor and this lens? Everybody knows that in FF this lens will give us some softness on the edges however I would like to know how is the final result created by this combo.
Any experiences in the field, images or crops to show or any comparision by old users of 5D version one and the new 5DMKII with the 17-40 will be welcome.
Thanks guys
HAVE A NICE X-MAS
Posted by Don Miller on December 23, 2008 at 6:17 AM
Hi Perdro,
I can't answer your question, but on the 5D the Nikon 14-24 was clearly superior. But it's twice the price, requires a special adapter to use on Canon, and has no auto functions.
On the 5D II I feel satisfied with the 14-24. I never felt that way with either of Canon's zooms. But the 17-40 is a good value, and it covers the whole wide range, which is nice.
My landscape set is:
Nikon 14-24
Contax 35-75
Canon 70-200/4 IS
Don
Posted by Paul DeCesare on December 23, 2008 at 2:41 PM
My 17-40mm is sitting patiently in my bag for the 5D2 to arrive, after having the original 5D for a year. So I would be VERY interested in hearing from a new 5D2 owner with that lens, who once had a 5D.
Posted by Pedro Bento on December 27, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Hello guys,
Come on, there are much more of you with this combo, please let us know your impressions.
Thanks for Jesse, Paul and Don for your feedback.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on December 30, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Well,
I have both, but only used the combo for a short while. I actually got the 17-40L about 3 weeks ago when I got the 5DII. But my wife wanted to wrap 'something' for Christmas. So I tested it only briefly. Now I have a cold, so I haven't had the chance to do more.
To be honest my initial reaction was a bit of disapointment. I had been shooting with my ancient 10D/Tokina 12-24 combo for a long time. And with the Tokina it was very easy to use manually. I just set it to infinity much of the time with acceptable to good results in terms of foreground to background sharpness.
Then I proceeded to use the 17-40L in the same manner manually focusing it and trying to hit infinity. Well my first go at night was a total loss. Everything was blurred. I then realized it focuses 'past' infinity quite a bit by design. Gee thanks Canon. So I tried taking it out of manual and used auto focus with a little better success. But it seems that its sweet spot is not nearly as wide as the Tokina 12-24 in terms of sharpness within various aperture ranges and planes of focus.
I am sure those who own the lens and have used it for quite some time have learned how to maximize its potential. It needs stopping down and even then I am not sure about achieving foreground to background sharpness.
I am hoping with more practice I can squeeze a little more sharpness out of the thing. But I am getting *So* much more sharpness, detail and micro contrast from my Zeiss 35-70/3.4 on the 5DII that it really makes me wonder. Here is an example of what the Zeiss does with much less effort. Its got a huge sweet spot by contrast: http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/442311785_dQmhc-XL.jpg.
It might just be a stop gap lens for now until I get some more manual Zeiss primes. I am hoping Zeiss will to come out with new ZE wides that smoke Canon's current offerings. A Zeiss 16-35 like the one they make for Sony would be ideal.
Do any old 17-40L pros have any tips for squeezing the most out of this lens. I have heard some say it is necessary to go f16+ to really get more foreground to background sharpness. Of course diffraction is always mentioned. But hey, you do what you can to make it work for you I guess. How about trying to focus midground vs. infinity? I am open to suggestions for sure.
Derek
Posted by Pedro Bento on January 3, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Discussion
5 repliesI know some of you are now using this combo (Canon 5D MKII + Canon 17-40 L). How do you feel regarding image quality generated by this 21 MP sensor and this lens? Everybody knows that in FF this lens will give us some softness on the edges however I would like to know how is the final result created by this combo.
Any experiences in the field, images or crops to show or any comparision by old users of 5D version one and the new 5DMKII with the 17-40 will be welcome.
Thanks guys
HAVE A NICE X-MAS
I can't answer your question, but on the 5D the Nikon 14-24 was clearly superior. But it's twice the price, requires a special adapter to use on Canon, and has no auto functions.
On the 5D II I feel satisfied with the 14-24. I never felt that way with either of Canon's zooms. But the 17-40 is a good value, and it covers the whole wide range, which is nice.
My landscape set is:
Nikon 14-24
Contax 35-75
Canon 70-200/4 IS
Don
Come on, there are much more of you with this combo, please let us know your impressions.
Thanks for Jesse, Paul and Don for your feedback.
I have both, but only used the combo for a short while. I actually got the 17-40L about 3 weeks ago when I got the 5DII. But my wife wanted to wrap 'something' for Christmas. So I tested it only briefly. Now I have a cold, so I haven't had the chance to do more.
To be honest my initial reaction was a bit of disapointment. I had been shooting with my ancient 10D/Tokina 12-24 combo for a long time. And with the Tokina it was very easy to use manually. I just set it to infinity much of the time with acceptable to good results in terms of foreground to background sharpness.
Then I proceeded to use the 17-40L in the same manner manually focusing it and trying to hit infinity. Well my first go at night was a total loss. Everything was blurred. I then realized it focuses 'past' infinity quite a bit by design. Gee thanks Canon. So I tried taking it out of manual and used auto focus with a little better success. But it seems that its sweet spot is not nearly as wide as the Tokina 12-24 in terms of sharpness within various aperture ranges and planes of focus.
I am sure those who own the lens and have used it for quite some time have learned how to maximize its potential. It needs stopping down and even then I am not sure about achieving foreground to background sharpness.
Here is an example of the Tokina 12-24 @f7.1 & 10D:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/422918810_X3XEa-XL.jpg
And the same angle with the 17-40L @f9 & 5DII:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/433890954_w9Gwf-XL.jpg
I am hoping with more practice I can squeeze a little more sharpness out of the thing. But I am getting *So* much more sharpness, detail and micro contrast from my Zeiss 35-70/3.4 on the 5DII that it really makes me wonder. Here is an example of what the Zeiss does with much less effort. Its got a huge sweet spot by contrast:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/442311785_dQmhc-XL.jpg.
It might just be a stop gap lens for now until I get some more manual Zeiss primes. I am hoping Zeiss will to come out with new ZE wides that smoke Canon's current offerings. A Zeiss 16-35 like the one they make for Sony would be ideal.
Do any old 17-40L pros have any tips for squeezing the most out of this lens. I have heard some say it is necessary to go f16+ to really get more foreground to background sharpness. Of course diffraction is always mentioned. But hey, you do what you can to make it work for you I guess. How about trying to focus midground vs. infinity? I am open to suggestions for sure.
Derek
Thank you very much for your extensive help