Tag Archives: 17-40

Commentary, Equipment, Popular

My Backpacking Photography Equipment

34 Comments

(Note: I update this article periodically, most recently in August 2019.)

I do a significant amount of backpacking every summer, and almost every season I spend as much as a few weeks on the trail in the Sierra Nevada, in addition to other non-backpacking trips to the Sierra and elsewhere.  I’ve been a backpacking photographer for nearly five decades, and I’ve evolved (and continue to evolve) an approach to backpacking photography that works well for me.

Ascending to Kaweah Gap
Ascending to Kaweah Gap

Decades ago, I carried a couple of small 35mm film cameras and a few prime lenses on the trail. (I think my favorites were a Pentax ME Super and a Pentax MX with a small set of primes, a tele-extender, and some extension tubes. But I digress….) Some years later, when I first used a digital SLR,  I worked out a pretty good back-country photography kit based on a small “Rebel” style  Canon 350D/XTi. For many photographers there are real advantages in using one of the smaller cropped sensor bodies – less bulk, less weight, smaller lenses, and quite fine photographic quality. One of the four-thirds system bodies can also be a great compromise for some, and the newer mirrorless cameras offer some very interesting and lighter possibilities — though check their battery capacity first. However, I eventually  moved to full frame, and acquiring a full-frame 5D forced me to think more carefully about what I carry.

(Update: In early 2013 I acquired the Fujifilm X-E1 Digital Camera along with a few of the excellent Fujinon lenses. In 2016  I updated to the Fujifilm X-Pro2 plus Fujifilm’s 16-55mm and 50-140mm lenses for an alternative lightweight trail setup. More on this follows.)

Subalpine Meadow, Summer
Midday summer sky reflected in a subalpine tarn, Yosemite National Park

While I would like to have all of my gear with me, the load would be unmanageable. (At least at this stage of my life. When I was young, strong, and foolish in different ways than I am now, I would sometimes head out onto the trail with loads weighing up to 75 pounds. No more! On the other hand, pack train support is a viable option in some cases.) Ironically, while I have lightened my load of backpacking equipment considerably during recent years – moving more in the ultralight direction – my photographic equipment load has increased. The bottom line is that I consider very carefully what I carry, considering the upsides and downsides of each piece of equipment and occasionally making compromises if I think a piece of gear can be left behind on a given trip.

Here’s what I might carry these days when I go out with my full-on landscape photography system:

  • Canon EOS 5DS R  — (Until recently I carried a Canon EOS 5DII — which Canon replaced with the Canon 5D Mark III — and I previously used a Canon 5D) – Heavier and bulkier than the cropped sensor bodies, but worth it to me for the higher resolution and the better small aperture performance. The Nikon D810 would be an alternative if I were a Nikon shooter and Sony photographers might choose the a7RII Mirrorless Digital Camera.
  • A standard zoom lens is typically on my camera by default. They cover a range from decently wide to slightly long.
    • The Canon 24-105mm f/4L II IS (I have the older version I) is a great standard lens for many purposes. If I’m willing to forego a bit of reach the 24-105mm range can be a viable one-lens option. The 24mm wide end is also wide enough for many situations. The inclusion of image-stabilization (IS) helps when shooting handheld when I’m on the move. For this type of lens, the weight and size are not too bad at all.
    • The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II offers somewhat better image quality and  is a fine lens for tripod-based photography when I’m willing to carry a bit more weight.
    • The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS is a fine lens that is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the f/2.8 24-70mm lens, and there are good reasons to regard these as advantages. It also has image stabilization and enhanced close-focus capabilities. (I have not used this lens.)
    • Current versions of the Canon 24-105mm f/4L II IS,  EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and EF 24-70mm f/4L IS lenses at B&H.
  • I usually carry an Ultra-wide zoom lens. (When I use a two-lens system, either this type of lens or a 70-200mm accompanies my standard zoom. )
    • The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS lens  is my preferred lens for some types of landscape work, often done early or late in the day when I’m not carrying the backpack and can therefore more easily work slowly and with a tripod.
    • For many years I relied on the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens to cover ultra-wide angle photography. It is still a useful lens and an excellent value at much lower price. Its image quality is not as good as that of the excellent 16-35mm f/4 described above, though it can perform reasonably well at smaller apertures typically used in much landscape photography.
    • (EF 16-35mm f/4L IS lens and Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens at B&H.)
  • A Telephoto Zoom lens is very useful. Not only does it provide almost twice the “reach” of the mid-range zooms, but it can work well for close-up work where the longer focal length provides narrower DOF and good bokeh. The lens gets its own padded Lowepro case and usually rides inside my main backpack.
  • Teleconverter — I often carry a small and light Canon Extender EF 1.4X III, a 1.4x teleconverter that gives my 70-200mm lens the reach of a 280mm focal length. A slightly larger and heavier and more expensive Extender EF 2X III is also available, and it gives the 70-200 a 400mm maximum focal length. (Extenders also decrease the maximum effective aperture, and those considering the 2X model should verify that it will work correctly with their cameras, since not all bodies will autofocus with lenses that don’t have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or larger.)
  • Circular polarizing filters — These filters are useful in many ways. They can control reflections when photographing water and foliage; they can increase the definition of clouds; they can function as a sort of stand-in neutral density filter.
  • 9-stop neutral density filter —  This is a useful filter for certain types of images that require longer daytime exposures. (To be honest, most often I do not carry it into the backcountry.)
  • Batteries — I take a lot of photographs sometimes, and I also like to do night photography. I don’t want to be caught short, so I typically carry at least three batteries and often more, especially if I think I’ll be doing night photography and/or using Live View a lot.
  • Solar Charging System — On very long trips a solar charging system is necessary to recharge batteries on the trail. I have written a bit more about this later on this page.
  • Multiple large capacity CF cards — I carry a lot more card capacity than I think I’ll actually need since cards are light and relatively inexpensive these days, and I’d rather carry too much than run out of storage capacity. These days, using dual-slot cameras, I use two 128GB cards per camera. I set the camera to save duplicate copies of the raw files on the two cards, giving me some additional peace of mind should a card fail. (In the unlikely event that I fill the 128GB cards and run out of space, I can reform the second card and  and continue shooting on the second card, foregoing the second-card backup.) On pack-train supported trips I may bring a very small laptop for making backup copies from the cards. (Some tablets could work here, too.)
  • Tripod — A backpacking tripod almost by necessity requires some attention to compromises among size, weight, cost, reliability, and stability. For non-backpacking use I prefer a very large and rather heavy tripod that I would not want to carry or try to attach to the pack I use for backpacking. So while I miss the solid functionality of that tripod, issues of weight and packed size lead me to use smaller and lighter gear in this case. Photographers will be comfortable with different types of compromises here, so the choice of the right tripod will be a very individual and subjective one. In the backcountry I use a Gitzo GT2542L “Mountaineer” Tripod, which has be updated to the Gitzo GT2543L “Mountaineer”. (This “L” model is about 5″ taller than the regular Gitzo GT2542 “Mountaineer”.) Although not every backpacking photographer needs such a large and expensive tripod, I prefer this relatively tall Gitzo model. With four-section legs it packs to a reasonable – though not exactly tiny – size, yet when legs are fully extended it holds my camera at eye level. I use a center column so that it will go even higher or accommodate uneven ground. The Gitzo Mountaineer models have a well-deserved reputation for great construction and for providing stable camera support. After using it extensively since 2011, including an multiple backcountry photography in the Sierra, I can recommend it without hesitation.  (Gitzo GT2543L “Mountaineer” and Gitzo GT2542 “Mountaineer” at B&H)
  • Acratech Ultimate Ballhead — This tripod head weighs only about one pound and works very well – this is a great backpacking ballhead, and one that I can use for some of my “regular” photography as well.
  • Lowepro Toploader Zoom AW bag — I use this with a chest harness to hold the 5D plus the 24-105 (with hood), along with most of the other photo gear. The bag is sturdy and includes a rain-cover – though the whole thing can go into my main pack in case of truly bad weather. (The 17-40 could ride in the backpack in a smaller Lowepro lens case, but most often it fits crosswise into the bottom of the Topload bag.)
  • Canon remote release
  • Assorted accessories – Lens cleaning cloth, sensor brush, blower, Philips wrench, etc.
Fractured Granite, Reflections
Fractured Granite, Reflections

I never have had the courage to weigh the whole mess, but I think it is somewhere in the 12-15 pound range… or more. By the standards of my ultra-light backpacker friends (whose total backpacking base load may be 12-15 pounds… or less!) this is an outrageous amount to carry. On the other hand, fellow photographers may be wondering how I managed to get by with only limited lenses and a small tripod!

(Speaking of weight and bulk… In August 2008 I met a fellow at Moraine Lake in SEKI who was carrying two Nikon DSLR bodies and four lenses! Later that summer I met an experienced Yosemite back-country photographer equipped with three complete systems: full-frame DSLR, medium format digital, and large format film! Not surprisingly he had arrived with the assistance of a pack train. I have met another well-known and highly regarded black and white photographer and his wife in the backcountry, and each of them carried more than 30 pounds of medium format film gear. I guess all of this makes me a photographic wimp!)

I also have a lighter alternative system based on a mirrorless cropped sensor camera.

  • My Fujifilm X-Pro2 24MP mirrorless crop-sensor system is considerably smaller and lighter than my DSLR system. Many backpackers looking at a high-end Fujifilm system may prefer the Fujifilm XT2, a 24MP cropped sensor mirrorless camera with a design that feels more like a DSLR. The Fujifilm XT20 provides the same sensor in a body with fewer features and a lower price. These cameras have progressed to the point that they can produce truly excellent image quality — enough that I can make stunning 20″ x 30″ and larger prints. One thing to consider is that the battery life is shorter in these cameras than with typical DSLRs — I may get only about 300 or fewer shots from a battery with the Fujifilm camera, while I could get over 1000 with my 5DsR. (Though using “live view” mode on the DSLR can essentially erase this advantage.) And, of course, there are alternatives to Fujifilm from other manufacturers who also produce high quality cropped sensor systems.
  • Lenses for cropped sensor cameras also tend to smaller than lighter than their equivalents on full frame cameras. (I won’t get into all of the gory details here but, for example, a 23mm lens on my Fujifilm camera gives me the same “reach” as a 35mm lens on my full frame system.) I carry two lenses, Fujifilm’s 16-55mm and 50-140mm lenses, which are angle-of-view equivalents to approximately 24-82mm and 70-210mm full-frame system lenses.

Note: Some photographers are now using the full frame Sony Alpha Mirrorless Digital Camera, which provides high MP resolution, full frame format, and lighter camera weight than DSLRs. Note that battery life, as with all mirrorless cameras, is shorter, and that the weight savings probably don’t extend to your lenses, at least if you use the same types of lenses that you would otherwise use on a DSLR.

There area some things that I do not take:

  • I do somewhat miss my full size Induro C313 tripod, but not nearly as much as I expected – and certainly not enough to carry the extra bulk and weight. My Gitzo mountaineer is perhaps a tiny bit more spindly, but it really is a solid tripod.
  • I usually do not miss my longer and heavier EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. I may have missed a very small number of shots by leaving it at home, but I’m generally more interested in short telephoto to wide angle in the back-country. (I might take the 100-400 instead of the 70-200 if I were headed into an area where knew that the extra reach would be needed – for example, if certain wildlife opportunities were my goal – but I would begrudge the weight!)
  • I do not carry prime lenses. Zooms provide excellent image quality, far more flexibility, require fewer lens changes, and are probably not really much if any heavier than carrying an equivalent range of high quality primes.

The large Lowepro Topload bag with the chest harness is (pardon the awful pun) a mixed bag. It really is a fine product and the chest harness system is effective. You can even use it as a virtual shoulder bag by disconnecting a couple of the four strap attachment points. It is great to be able to fit much of my photo equipment into one sturdy, weather-resistant, manageable and accessible bag. There are downsides, though – not the fault of Lowepro, but just the result of trying to accommodate all of the needs of the backpacking photographer with one bag. One unavoidable issue is the size of the bag, especially when carried on the chest. In rough country it is a disadvantage to be unable to see your feet! I have become adept at looking around the sides of the bag in many situations, though I have to be more careful of my footing in when traveling cross country. Trekking poles become even more useful. During extended cross country sections (such as class 2+ routes) I sometimes feel more comfortable removing the bag and carrying it inside my main backpack. Having issued these disclaimers, I still rely on this bag and recommend it strongly.

Submerged Boulders, Lake, and Cliffs
Submerged Boulders, Lake, and Cliffs

File Storage

Several important issues come up when we consider the safe storage of digital images on the trail. The most obvious concern is that you carry enough storage card capacity for the number of photographs that you intend to make. The second concern, and it is arguably just as important, concerns how you will store and back up your precious files on the trail.

Fortunately, memory cards are relatively cheap and have very large capacities these days. Available capacities can store thousands of files on a card. Most photographers won’t make so many photographs on one trip that they won’t fit on a single card, though carrying at least one extra is wise in case you encounter a problem with your primary card.

If you anticipate making more photographs than you can fit on a card, it usually simply makes sense to bring more cards! Again, they are small, light, capacious, and inexpensive these days.

Ensuring the security of your files on the card is a bit more complicated on the trail. You probably aren’t carrying your laptop, so you can’t backup to that. (On stock-supported trips I do sometimes bring a small laptop and a separate external drive for backups.) A first-line of defense is to use a camera with two car slots and set it up to write duplicate copies of each photograph to the two cards. This provides a backup in the event of a card failure.  Extra-cautious photographers might remove one of the cards and store it in a separate location. (I’m usually not that cautious.)

There are small external drives that have built-in card readers. Given their costs and power consumption issues, I don’t carry them, though I have friends who do use them.

The Issue of Power

Digital cameras use electricity. I’ll bet you knew that already! Batteries have a finite life and then they need charging. On short trips this isn’t an issue, but if you go out for more than a few days it is important to plan and consider the options.

If you tend to shoot handheld and use a typical DSLR, you may get many hundreds or even a few thousand photographs from  single battery. Unless you are a very productive photographer, a single battery — probably with one backup — will likely get you through most trips.

However, the battery concerns loom larger if you don’t fit that description. For example:

  • If you use a mirrorless camera you may only get a few hundred frames per battery.
  • If you use “live view” mode (as I do) you may get only a few hundred or fewer exposures per battery.
  • Extensive review of your photographs draws more power.
  • If you do any night photography you can use up more than one battery in a single night.

If the trip isn’t overly long, the most effective solution in terms of both cost and weight is simply to carry more batteries. I often carry four or more, and this can get me through a week of photography in many cases.

On longer trips or if you consume batteries at a prodigious rate, you may need to use a solar charging system. Given their cost and weight, carefully consider the first option of carrying more charged camera batteries — it takes quite a few camera batteries to add up to the weight and cost of the solar chargers. Also keep in mind that the high power chargers may tend to keep you (or at least the charger system) in camp, as they need to sit out in full sun for hours. (You can hang chargers off the back of your pack while walking, but there are some issues with that solution, especially for photographers.)

I use solar charging equipment from Voltaic Systems, but mostly for trips with pack-train support. Smaller systems that can provide enough power for a daily battery charge are viable and can allow you to reduce the number of batteries you carry. Note that reliable solar-chagring systems are not always light or inexpensive — they can weigh and cost as much as a number of batteries. Another option is to charge the system’s battery at home and then bring the battery without the solar panel on the trail.

One More Thing

As photographers who are willing to go to great lengths to carry ourselves and our gear into beautiful and wild places in order photograph their beauty, we have a special obligation to protect these wonders and the solitude that surrounds them. We should be careful to minimize our impact on these places, and once there we should treat them with care and respect.

In addition, I think it is worth striving to reveal through our work the deeper and more fundamental beauties of such places. While bagging — and showing off — another shot of a familiar icon has its appeal (and yes, I do photograph icons sometimes) inventing a visual world that seems to consist exclusively of such atypical and often iconic things presents a false view of the subject and misses the opportunity to look for something deeper in our own photography. Much of the best back-country photography that I have seen reveals things that are only known to those who spend long, quiet time in these places, returning over the years to develop a deeper knowledge and understanding of their subjects.

Finally, I have become increasingly aware of the (often unintentional) role that photographers can play in encouraging the overuse and over-popularity of certain fragile and special places. I’m not one to try to keep “private places” for myself – they aren’t mine anyway – but I think we all need to exercise a great deal of discretion about saying too much about places that cannot handle even a few more visitors. This has been difficult for me, since I love to share my stories about the places I visit, but I’m now convinced that it is more ethical to concentrate on the photographs and the experience while saying no more than necessary about the geographical specifics.

Questions, comments, observations? Feel free to post below!

Notes:

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” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.

Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email

Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.

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

Commentary, 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 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.