I have updated my blog post: “Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Lens.” It might seem a bit strange to update an article on that subject on the heels of Canon’s introduction of a new lens that may be more interesting for many photographers, but read on…
For quite a while, photographers shooting Canon full frame systems have basically had two options when it comes to Canon ultra wide zoom lenses, the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. (Those using cropped sensor cameras have also had the option of the excellent Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens.) As of mid-2014 there is a new option to consider, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS.
I have ordered a copy of the new 16-35mm f/4 lens and I’ll report on that once I have had a chance to use it a bit. But given the altered terrain for those considering the purchase of a Canon ultra wide zoom, I thought that updating the review of the 17-40 was important. This lens is still a viable option for lots of photographers, especially those who are price-sensitive or who want smallest and lightest possible Canon ultra wide zoom for full frame cameras.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
All good points, Jerry. I’ll try to address them and more after I have a chance to put the lens through its paces in the next few weeks, and perhaps I’ll share some initial impressions sooner than that.
While I understand why IS is so often helpful with long lenses — as one who often has to shoot them handheld and finds himself trapped in that nexus between ISO, aperture, and shutter speed with moving subjects in low light — I have also felt that IS can be useful with normal and wide angle lenses. Basically, there can be times with any lens when you run out of working room and push that low light boundary. I have examples of photographs that I was only able to make because I had, for example, a lens that could do 24mm with IS.
Dan
Dan, with a good copy of the 17-40L in kit I’m not jumping on the new 16-35L but would be most interested in your findings.
What is of most interest, besides IQ and corner sharpness, is how well or not IS works with an ultra-wide lens when hand-holding.
As age advances with this disability my steadiness hand-holding becomes less and less viable. Having IS has helped greatly so far with the 100L and 70-200 f4L. As I use zooms for most daytime efforts it could prove a huge benefit carrying an f4L IS trio; 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.
Thanks,
Jerry