Posted by Paul DeCesare on June 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This will be quick, just some thoughts I wanted to post because some folks have posed the question, if the 17-40mm works OK on the 5D2. I was very happy with my 17-40mm when I had my original 5D. I got the 5D MKII in January, and the images off the 17-40mm were "eh" at best. I thought it was my camera... maybe the sensor was not functioning correctly. I took tons of test images and the results were never stunning. However, images shot with my 70-200/2.8 were excellent image quality-wise, and also with a 50mm/1.4 I recently purchased (side note: the 50mm/1.4 is fantastic for video).
So, to see what might happen, I posted my 17-40mm in the used section on Amazon of all places because Amazon was out of stock, and I thought somebody might bite. It sold in hours. So I ordered the 16-35mm/2.8 II, and waited. Finally it showed up last week, and the difference in image quality is HUGELY better. The WHOA is back! I don't mean that the 16-35mm is superbly better than the 17-40mm on the edges and in sharpness (most Canon wide zooms are icky on the edges), what I'm referring to is contrast and depth of image quality (sorry, not the best technical term). The images just look way better, especially in low-light, indoor shots. The 17-40mm was never stunning in low light even on the old 5D, unless you did a 20-second exposure on a tripod. Not much help for available-light shots of people. The 16-35mm is really worth the price tag for everything from indoor to landscapes, and really performs well for video.
Having said all this, I've seen some beautiful work posted by people using a 5D2 and a 17-40mm. Who knows, maybe I had a so-so copy that survived on the old 5D but didn't pass muster on the 21mp sensor. At any rate, the stupid expensive 16-35mm does look better to my amateur eyes, noticably.
I kind of wondered that Kah Kit... in fact, I think it was some of your images that I saw that looked great with the 17-40mm. No regrets though, I have a lens that works now, and I do like the brighter viewfinder due to f/2.8. The 82mm filter situation isn't fun though!
I was happy w/ my 17-40mm lens on my old 1Ds MKII. However, the same can not be said for that lens on my 5D MKII. I bought the 16-35mm MKII and it is significantly better in every aspect. Much sharper, better contrast...just an all-around great lens. I've had both lenses since March and will be selling the 17-40mm lens now that I see the difference between it and the 16-35mm. Nice to know I'm not the only one with the same experience.
Discussion
6 repliesSo, to see what might happen, I posted my 17-40mm in the used section on Amazon of all places because Amazon was out of stock, and I thought somebody might bite. It sold in hours. So I ordered the 16-35mm/2.8 II, and waited. Finally it showed up last week, and the difference in image quality is HUGELY better. The WHOA is back! I don't mean that the 16-35mm is superbly better than the 17-40mm on the edges and in sharpness (most Canon wide zooms are icky on the edges), what I'm referring to is contrast and depth of image quality (sorry, not the best technical term). The images just look way better, especially in low-light, indoor shots. The 17-40mm was never stunning in low light even on the old 5D, unless you did a 20-second exposure on a tripod. Not much help for available-light shots of people. The 16-35mm is really worth the price tag for everything from indoor to landscapes, and really performs well for video.
Having said all this, I've seen some beautiful work posted by people using a 5D2 and a 17-40mm. Who knows, maybe I had a so-so copy that survived on the old 5D but didn't pass muster on the 21mp sensor. At any rate, the stupid expensive 16-35mm does look better to my amateur eyes, noticably.
tw