Category Archives: Equipment

Equipment, Reviews, Tests

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Lens

Leave a comment

Updated on July 6, 2014 – After relying on this lens for nearly 10 years, I am about to replace it with a Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS, a lens that just recently became available. (I’ll review that lens a this blog after I have a chance to use it.) With this change in mind, I am updating this post one more time.

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens has long been a core lens in my kit, covering the wide to ultra wide angle range on my full frame cameras. For my primary uses it is a great performer. It is almost always in my kit when I backpack, and I often use it for landscape photography and occasionally for other types of photography, too.

As I have written elsewhere, every lens has a “personality” that makes it more or less suited to different types of photography and different photographers. This personality is the result of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the lens. No lens is objectively “best” in all ways, so the real interesting question is how well various lenses line up with your specific needs. With that in mind, here are some observations about the 17-40 based on nearly a decade of use since 2005.

  • Overall, the lens is capable of excellent resolution.  Center sharpness is good at all apertures (leaving aside for the moment the effects of diffraction blur that will soften the image from any lens at very small apertures) and it can be quite good when the lens is stopped down a bit. It is important to note that ultra wide zoom lenses (and even prime lenses) can have some issues with sharpness and other factors such as chromatic aberration, especially in the corners of the frame. This lens is not immune to these issues of ultra wide lenses, though it handles most of them quite well in many cases.
  • Corner sharpness varies depending upon aperture. In my experience, the lens shows noticeable corner softness at f/4. Whether or not this is a problem depends a lot on how you will shoot the lens and what your expectations are. I have used the lens wide open for street photography in closed-in spaces, and the soft corners added a character to the shots that I liked. If you require something closer to corner-to-corner sharpness wide open, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is likely to be a better choice if you mainly shoot low-light, hand-held, full-frame work. (Read more about the 16-35mm options later in this post.)  However, if you are looking for an ultra wide zoom to shoot more static subjects from the tripod and you will use smaller apertures for larger depth of field, the 17-40 is just as good – and lighter and less expensive to boot. Stopped down a bit and on the tripod, the 17-40 produces excellent results.
  • In mid-2014 Canon introduced another alternative lens, the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS. This lens offers significantly better corner performance that either of the earlier lenses along with image stabilization. This lens offers significant improvements to corner performance, a narrower focal length range, and a price that is roughly between that of the 17-40 and the f/2.8 16-35. (Read more about this option later in this post.)
  • The lens has a great reputation for resistance to flare, and my experience is in line with this. This may be more important in an ultra wide lens since its wide field of view is more likely to include the sun or other flare-producing light sources, and because the shallow lens hoods that are required for ultra-wide lenses don’t really shade the lens much at all.
  • Build quality is just what you would expect in an L lens, and there is something about the compact and simple nature of this lens that seems to give it an even more solid “feel,” for whatever that might be worth. Along these lines, it uses 77mm filters, which are very common on other L zooms.
If you poke around on the net long enough, you’ll find posts that suggest that the 17-40 isn’t sharp enough or that the 16-35 is a better choice. This turns out to lead to some complicated issues, so let me take a shot at dealing with them
  • Is the 16-35 sharper than the 17-40? Yes and no. The 17-40 is just as sharp (or even a bit sharper) in the center at any aperture, though it is not as sharp in the corners at the largest apertures.  So, “yes” if you mainly shoot wide open in very low light. But “no” if you mainly use the ultra wide lens stopped down while shooting from the tripod, for things like landscape and architecture.
  • Is the 17-40 poor in the corners? Again, yes and no. First, many ultra wide angle lenses have issues in the corners – this is pretty much the nature of the beast. (There are a few exceptions, but they tend to be very specialized and very costly. Note: I’m expecting that the new Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS may be one of this exceptions.) Second, wide open the 17-40 is not great in the corners, at least in my experience. At f/4, and to a lesser extent f/5.6, the corners are soft and for several reasons. However, stopped down it is much better in the corners — as good as its traditional Canon alternative, the 16-35mm f/2.8. (Some of the reports of poor corners seem to come from a typical characteristic of many ultra wide “test shots,” which often include very close scene elements in the lower corners – and the issue is more about DOF than about lens sharpness.
  • If you shoot a cropped sensor camera, neither of these will likely be the best choice – more on that below.

On full frame, this lens complements any of the 24mm-xxmm L zooms. It does overlap their focal length ranges a bit, but I find that useful for several reasons. (I shoot the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. (See more about these lenses here: “Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/4L IS vs. 24-105mm f/4 L IS“) First, it means that I am a bit less likely to need to change lenses. Second, it means that I can sometimes stay away from the ends of the focal length ranges of either lens, and this can produce just a bit more image quality in some cases.

Some photographers combine the 17-40 with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens (link to B&H) and then add a 50mm prime to “fill the gap.” I don’t do this, but I can understand how it could work well and save some weight and bulk.

The 17-40 f/4 L on Cropped Sensor Bodies

Some photographers like to use this lens on their cropped sensor cameras. I used mine on a cropped sensor body for the first year or so that I owned it, but I’ve used in exclusively on full frame bodies since that time. In my view it is merely OK on cropped sensor cameras, but not a stand out performer. The main issue is that, in my experience, you end up caught between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” The “rock” is the relatively conservative f/4 maximum aperture with its less than stupendous corner performance. The “hard place” is the issue with diffraction blur occurring sooner as you stop down on cropped sensor cameras – many feel that you would want to be cautious about stopping down much past f/8 for this reason on crop. This doesn’t leave you with a lot to work with: f/4 is a bit soft in the corners. f/5.6 is getting better but isn’t yet great. f/8 is pretty good all around. At f/11 diffraction blur starts to become a concern. In the end, you really have only one truly good aperture. Fortunately, cropped sensor camera shooters have a great alternative in the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens. It provides better large aperture performance, a wider range of apertures at f2.8, image stabilization, and a larger focal length range. For this reason, I tend to recommend it over the 17-40 for cropped sensor shooters.

Cropped sensor shooters contemplating an ultra-wide angle lens should be aware that this focal length range does not provide equally wide angle-of-view coverage on their cameras. On these cameras the 17-40mm and 16-35mm focal lengths range from merely wide to a bit longer than normal. Basically, if you shoot a cropped sensor camera and you want ultra-wide… you do not want any of these lenses! Canon does make a lens that provides ultra-wide coverage on your cropped sensor camera though. It is the EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. This is a fine lens for things like landscape photography, and the angle-of-view coverage on cropped sensor cameras is equal to that of the 16-35mm lenses on full frame.

(Note that these EFS lenses are not designed to work on full frame cameras.)

Compared to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II

The Canon alternative to the EF 17-40mm f/4 L has long been the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. (The current, newer version is signified by the addition of “II” to its name.). A few important points include:

  • This 16-35mm lens provides one additional stop at f/2.8, which is useful to those doing handheld ultra-wide angle photography. It is a popular and useful lens for things such as journalism, wedding, and event photography for this reason.
  • This lens also provide better corner performance at large apertures where the 17-40 shows its corner weaknesses, especially at f/4 and to lesser extent f/5.6 and possibly f/8.
  • The 16-35mm f/2.8 II is no better than the 17-40 at smaller apertures, where the 17-40 is at least as good and perhaps marginally better in some ways, so there is little advantage in the 16-35mm f/2.8 for landscape photographers and those doing similar work who may typically shoot such a lens at smaller apertures.
  • The 16-35mm f/2.8 II is approximately twice as costly as the 17-40mm lens. It is also larger and heavier.
  • The II version of the 16-35mm lens uses a larger 82mm diameter filter thread. (The older version has a 77mm thread diameter, which is common to a number of Canon L lenses.)

Compared to the Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS

As of the date of the current revision of this post, Canon had just introduced a new EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS lens that can be an alternative to the 17-40mm f/4 L and, for that matter, to the older EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. Some considerations follow:

  • Although this lens has the same f/4 maximum aperture as the 17-40mm lens, it adds image-stabilization (IS). IS allows you to hand hold the camera at lower shutter speeds by compensation for camera motion/vibration.
  • Every review I have read reports much better corner performance than that of either the 17-40mm f/4 or the 16-35mm f/2.8, including very good performance wide open. The best performance seems to be at the shortest focal lengths, where the coverage does not overlap that of longer zoom lenses. (I will update this section based on my own experiences after I have a chance to use the lens.)
  • This lens is larger and heavier than the 17-40mm lens, being more like the 16-35mm f/2.8 in these characteristics. It is priced midway between the other two lenses.
  • This lens uses the more “standard” 77mm filter threads.

The Bottom Line

In some ways, this is almost as much a post about options for covering this focal length range as it is about the 17-40 f/4 L itself. It is also a good example of the fact that there is no one “best lens” in a general sense, but that it is really about which lens is right for your particular needs. With that in mind, a quick recap of three options along with some general ideas about situations in which any of them might be a best choice:

  • If you use a full frame camera, mostly shoot from the tripod, and tend to favor smaller apertures for greater depth of field and other reasons, then the 17-40mm f/4 L could be the best choice for you. It is smaller and lighter than the alternatives and costs quite a bit less.
  • If you want the best overall lens performance performance and can get along with image stabilization and without the f/2.8 aperture, the new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS may be your best option.
  • If you use a full frame camera and often shoot handheld in low-light situations and thus need to use larger apertures, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II could well be the best bet for you. Of course, it can also do much of what the 17-40 will do, though with a higher cost, smaller focal length range, and greater weight and bulk.
  • If you shoot a cropped sensor camera the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better choice than either of the L lenses for you – with its excellent optical quality, f/2.8 aperture, image stabilization, and larger focal length range.

Bottom line: The EF 17-40 f/4 L is a great lens for full-frame photographers who want a versatile ultra-wide angle lens for shooting large DOF subjects from the tripod, including subjects such as landscape and architecture. Its lower cost, smaller size, and lighter weight are bonuses – the latter two especially so for those who work while traveling on foot.

This lens is available from site sponsor B&H Photo, and your purchase though links at this site help support the blog. If this information was useful to you in making your decision, please consider purchasing through the following link: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L at B&H

If the information in this post has helped you arrive at a purchase decision, please consider using these links to make your purchase from site-affiliate B&H Photo. Your price will be the same, you’ll purchase from a reliable vendor, and a small percentage of your purchase price will help support this website. Thanks!

In addition to the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L, other lenses mentioned in this article and available from B&H include:

Related posts:

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” (Heyday Books) is available directly from him.

G Dan Mitchell: Blog | Bluesky | Mastodon | Substack Notes | Flickr | Email


All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment, Reviews, Tests

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS Lens

Leave a comment

(Updated on December 28, 2011. Some links go to site sponsor B&H Photo)

Canon makes four L zoom lenses in this 70-200mm focal length: two f4 versions and two f2.8 versions, with IS (image stabilization) versions being available for both. All four lenses are optically excellent and among the very best zoom lenses you can buy. I like to say that deciding among them on the basis of image quality is like trying to choose between four quarters and a dollar bill on the basis of value. What primarily differentiates among the four models are their functional features, and your choice should be made primarily on that basis – and perhaps cost if this is a significant factor for you. (However, there are reports that the newer Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is at the head of this pack of very good lenses – but it isn’t necessarily the best choice for everyone.)

When I made my first 70-200mm purchase I chose the f/4 non-IS version – the IS version had not been released at that time. (You can purchase it from site sponsor B&H photo: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens) The f4 version I purchased set me back about $600 at the time, making this one of Canon’s least expensive entry points into the world of L lenses. The non-IS version of this lens is still a great performer. For those who might always shoot from the tripod, there might not be compelling reasons to spend more on any of the other models of this type of Canon lens.

More recently I acquired the image stabilized version of this lens. (Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens) In most ways its performance is very similar to that of the non-IS version, though the aperture blades are now apparently rounded, which can alter the appearance of out of focus highlights. In fact, both of the f/4 70-200mm lenses produce very nice background blur. For my purposes, I chose the f/4 IS version because I frequently use this lens while hiking/backpacking where the advantages of smaller size and lighter weight are more significant for me than the one additional stop. My feeling is that the f/4 version if fine for the majority of shooters, and is a better choice than the f/2.8 versions for those who cart their gear on their backs! Unless you never shoot handheld, the IS version of the lens is probably worth the extra cost for most buyers, though both will produce very similar optical results.

After using the non-IS f/4 version since 2005 and the IS version for a few months, here is what I have observed.

  • Image quality from either version of this lens is completely top notch. The lenses are capable of producing very high resolution images that will stand up as the largest prints you are likely to create from DSLR originals. Performance is generally very good throughout the focal length and aperture ranges.
  • Perhaps to the surprise of some photographers, the f/4 70-200mm lenses produce very nice bokeh (background blur) wide open. Some think you need larger aperture lenses to get this or to shoot portrait subjects. In truth, you most often don’t want to shoot at a larger aperture at these long focal lengths because the depth of field is so small, and f/4 controls DOF well and gives good bokeh.
  • While a 70-200mm zoom is not a small lens, the f/4 versions make such a lens more manageable. I’ll take my f/4 lenses backpacking, but I would not want to carry the heavier and bulkier f/2.8 into the back-country.
  • The usefulness of image stabilization will vary depending upon your subjects and shooting style, but I think that it is likely enough that you’ll get value from it at some point that most photographers should probably pay the extra cost for it. The IS on this lens is very capable, providing the ability to shoot at 3-4 stops slower shutter speeds. By increasing the ISO I have been able to shoot indoor musical performances under stage lighting with the IS lens.
  • These are very useful lenses for shooting certain small nature subjects such as wildflowers and similar. Not only is the nice bokeh often useful, but the ability to work at the longer focal lengths from a slightly greater distance is helpful. There are some reports that resolution may not be optimal at 200mm and the minimum focusing distance, but I’ve had good success in that sort of shooting.
While I’m doing these comparisons, let me share some ideas about situations in which one might choose any of the Canon 70-200mm options:
  • EF 70-200mm f/4 L – This non-IS lens is a great performer in every way. Its image quality equals the other lenses with the possible exception of the f/2.8 II lens at the larger apertures, and here the difference isn’t exactly going to be “night and day.” If you are on a budget or if you shoot exclusively from the tripod this can be the very best choice.
  • EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS – For those who will do some amount of handheld shooting but who otherwise would be fine with the non-IS 70-200mm lens, this can be the best choice. Again, image quality is excellent and essentially in the same category as that of the non-IS lens. However, the addition of effective IS extends the usefulness of this lens for hand held and low light shooting. If cost isn’t a constraint, this can be a better overall choice than the non-IS f/4 lens.
  • EF 70-200mm F2.8 L – Like the other 70-200mm lenses, this is an excellent performer. Since its cost is often very close to that of the 70-200mm f/4 IS lens, it is essentially a matter of trading one additional stop of aperture for IS. For a few people the added stop might be more useful – those shooting actions subjects in low light, a very small number who might need f/2.8 but who will always shoot from the tripod.
  • EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS – This is the most expensive option among the four, for obvious reasons – it combines the f/2.8 maximum aperture with a very effective image stabilization system… and ends up costing well over $2000. If cost is not a concern and if weight and bulk are not issues, then this can be the safest choice as is has all of the feature potentially provided by the other options. Practical photographers may decide that the additional weight, bulk and cost are not worth the one additional stopped it provides by comparison to the f/4 IS model.

With a 1.6 crop factor DSLR this lens is the angle-of-view equivalent to a 110-320mm lens on a full-frame camera body. By adding a 1.4x teleconverter to this lens, it gives the equivalent of a greater than 400mm lens on cropped sensor bodies. When I shot a crop sensor body I combined this lens with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS and the 17-40mm f/4 L. For me this lens is even more useful on a full frame body.

Bottom line: All four of the Canon 70-200m lenses are excellent products that produce wonderful image quality. On that basis there is little or nothing to suggest choosing any one of them above the others. However, the difference that they do possess (maximum aperture, IS,, weight, bulk, cost) can be determining factors.

Lenses mentioned in this article include:

(Links to site sponsor B&H Photo)

Related:

G Dan Mitchell Photography
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.

(Basic EXIF data is available by “mousing over” large images in blog posts. Leave a comment if you want to know more.)

Equipment

DSLR Megapixel Count Comparison

Leave a comment

(Note: I have updated this post several times, sometimes in the body of the original posting but in other cases by adding notes at the end. Also, it would be useful to update the illustration to include more current MP sensor dimensions, and I’ll do that at some point – but the point of the comparison is still useful even if you are looking for a camera with a 20+ MP sensor.)

Having a bit of free time this morning I decided to create a simple chart that compares digital camera sensors with different megapixel counts.

SensorSizeComparison: Sensor size comparison.

Keep in mind that this reflects the pixel dimensions but not the actual physical size of the sensor. For example a 12 megapixel APS sensor and a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor would look the same on this chart even though one is physically larger than the other. As such, a value of this way of looking at the differences is that it illustrates how much larger/small a print might be with the same resolution – to the extent that resolution is a result of pixel density.

All things being equal, it seems to me that moving from one size to the next larger (from 6 to 8 megapixels, from 8 to 10, from 10 to 12, etc.) is unlikely to make a significant difference for most people. I’m confident that a doubling of megapixel count is likely to be significant in many cases, though even here it will depend on a host of other factors. (Among them being is the size at which you print. If you print at, say, 12″ x 18″ you probably won’t see much difference past 8MP unless you look quite closely at your prints, and beyond 12MP there probably won’t be any significant in prints made from uncropped photos at this size.)

You might roughly extrapolate from the pixel count you are familiar with to figure out, for example, how large a print you might make using a higher pixel count sensor. For example, I feel that I can make good 12 x 18 prints from high quality 8 megapixel photographs. It seems that quality from a 12 megapixel sensor might be roughly the same at 14 x 21 or possibly 15 x 22.5 inches. A 16 megapixel sensor might provide similar resolution for a 16 x 24 or slightly larger print area.

As always, these assumptions are only general predictions. For example, if you assume that a larger print would be viewed from a greater distance, it would be reasonable to assume that you might get away with pushing the print size a bit further.

It is also important to keep in mind that pixel density is very definitely not the whole story when it comes to the questions of how large a print you can produce from a particular original photograph. Quite often the limitations in this regard are not based on the number of photosites on your sensor but are more likely based on other factors such as the stability of the camera when you made the exposure (e.g. – use a tripod), the accuracy of focus, the quality of your lens, your decisions about aperture, and even the subject of the photograph.

Update 5/21/08 – I still think this piece is generally on the right track, though after more experience using DSLR camera and making prints my views have changed a bit. Here are a few examples. I think I was a bit too conservative regarding print sizes that would be possible/acceptable from a given sensor. With good technique and care, I think it is possible – though not always quite automatic – to create a quite decent 16″ x 24″ print from a 8MP original. Although larger might be OK in some situations – e.g. an image in which fine detail is not the point – for me the details begin to get lost at about that point. I’m confident about going to 20″ x 30″ from a 12MP full frame original. These are not absolute boundaries, and there is a considerable amount of subjectivity at play.

I more or less stand by what I wrote about increases in MP count that might or might not be significant. I still think that the differences between, for example, 10MP and 12MP would rarely be visible, and I’m confident that the difference between 8MP and 16MP could be significant. But even here there are other factors to consider. To be more specific, if you make very careful and high quality exposures on the 16MP body and print quite large, the differences can be significant. I do not think that the difference would be at all significant in a letter size print, much less in a typical photo posted on the web

Finally, a smaller change in MP count accompanied by a switch from, say, a 10MP 1.6x cropped sensor body to a 12MP full-frame body could produce other image quality advantages in other ways that could make this a worthwhile upgrade for some photographers.

Equipment

Canon Prices Dropping?

Leave a comment

I see today that the Canon Digital Rebel XT (my camera) and the 20D are both on sale at considerably reduced prices at the Dell Home Store. The XT is available for about $700 and the 20D is available for $1125. Both are body-only and these prices require coupons.

In the past, I’ve seen Dell offer low prices like this when a product is first introduced (to grab the initial sales perhaps, but not in this case), when a product is going to replaced by something newer (it could happen), or just because.

I considered the Rebel XT and the 20D before I upgraded by digital camera earlier this year. I could have gotten either but for my purposes, the XT turned out to be a better choice than the 20D. The smaller and lighter body are a definite advantage since I often use the camera while hiking or backpacking. Not incidentally, the XT fits into a smaller case as well. (I use the Tamrac Zoom 14.) If the 20D took better pictures I might have made a different decision, but the image quality of the XT is essentially identical to that of the 20D. The 20D does have a more flexible and powerful interface, or so I hear, but this isn’t a big deal for the kinds of photography I usually do.

The Canon EF-S 17mm-85mm IS lens works well with this camera and is usually all I need. (Not that I couldn’t think of ways to spend a lot of money on additional lenses if given the opportunity. ;-)

Now, if the price on the just-announced Canon 5D (12.8 megapixel, full-frame, and about the size and weight of the 20D) would just drop by an equivalent amount…
—–