The Canon 17-40 f4 L
Another garbage lens I love…
I forget if the Canon 17-40L or the 24-105L is the oldest. There close in age, both are what could be considered second or third generation EF lenses. Both were the precursor to a lot of modern lenses that were absolutely amazing in terms of value and versatility. Both of them are have been trashed in various bullshit arm chair quarterback forums for well over a decade.
The common cliche is neither are real L lenses. In any case, neither of them deserve the shade cast their way. I think the notion that both of them are not worthy of mounting on your camera came from the people who had spent twice as much or more for their f/2.8 lenses the year before each was released. I am sure that the buyers of the 16-35 2.8L version I were especially irritated that this much less expensive lens handled better and performed far better. How dare Canon make a better lens that cost less…
If you don’t have one and shoot either Canon digital or film do yourself a favor and grab one. I am serious it’s been one of my favorites since I belatedly bought one to replace my 20mm f2.8 that broke. You might even be able to find one free. I am also serious about that I know a couple of people that got theirs free from photographers that upgraded to either the version II or III or the 16-35 f4L. Here’s the funny thing; none of the lenses before the version III 2.8L perfomed as well in the corners as the 17-40 and they generally had more distortion throughout the range. The 17-40 has very low distortion from 24mm to 40mm.
But, but, but what about those awful corners you have heard so much about? Don’t worry about them. Sure they are far from perfect but how do you use your super-wide zoom? Landscapes? If so they’re probably pretty boring as the only way to get across the frame sharpness is by shooting things really far away. If you have any close foreground, either it or the background is out of focus anyway. If you worry that much about across the frame perfection get a tilt-shift.
The above shot was a grab as I wasn’t the hired gun to shoot this wedding. That woman in the background giving e the evil eye was. Guess how much of that frame is actually super sharp. Very little, even at f/5.6 there’s a very narrow plane of focus no matter what lens you are using. This is not even as close as I usually use this lens. What about bokeh? Well, stopped down to f/5.6 I’d say there is plenty of separation.
It’s super hard to tell the difference between a wide-zoom at f/4 and one at f/2.8. The only reason to get the latter is if you shoot in the dark which as you know that one-stop increase is not usually the difference between good and bad. Get yourself a 24 f/1.4 instead. That is my next lens, or at least that’s what I’ve been telling myself for a decade but haven’t gotten around to actually needing it. I’ve made out fine in terms of the bokeh department using my super-wide super-close.
I wish Canon would make a real replacement for this, one that is totally self-contained with absolutely no extension at any zoom setting. It’s light, it’s constant aperture, it’s plenty sharp and it’s super cheap now. It’s been super cheap for years and years. Need a beater lens for those situations where you’re scared to take your brand new EF/RF $2000+ lens, grab one of these for a song if only for that. I will assure you that you’ll quickly become a fan.