I've had this lens soon after it was brought out all those years ago. To me, it's one of my many best lenses. Using this focal length means I want decent depth of field, making my 16-35mm f2.8 rather lacking, so this lens is almost always my prefered choice shooting at f4. The size and weight are perfect. My interior shots I've taken of hotel rooms on commission is second to none. The sharpness is superb on my Canon 5D Mk4. I have a construction photographer friend who shoots time lapse images of large building projects for his clients. He has four of these lenses. The price alone makes this lens a no brainer for any Canon photographer .. Having studied photography (and Graphic Design) at art college since 1965, I highly recommend this amazing lens ..
I'm full old skool, I use this lens on a Canon 50D and reckon it delivers great results. I am only a hobbyist and mainly do a mix of light painting, landscape and storm chasing photography. So the fact it's cheap (I paid $230 AU for one of Facebook Marketplace) and is weather resistant is a huge bonus for me.
Just got one, great overview video. Love the color rendering with this lens. It does "bend" straight lines towards the edges but you can fix this in Lightroom with a lens profile. I would recommend it especially on a budget.
Hey Robert, I have a question for you. I also have an R and I’m thinking about picking up a 17-40, can you tell me how loud the autofocus gets for video? I’d really only be using this for video so autofocus noise is my top priority
"You as a professional" really should've added sample photos, especially because you mounted it on R and also a few notes on how it behaves on the new system comparing to the dslr
For photos it’s pretty soft but you can fix some of that in post. I primarily use this as a video lens. As far as DSLR, all of the ef lenses work better on mirrorless. I just think the tech in these new cameras are exceptional!
I bought this lens when it first came out. I was replacing 17-35 that was dying. It was kind of what canon had. It wasn't cheap but wasn't outrageous either. Today, it may not be Canon's best WA zoom but it is still a useful lens and relatively affordable. Mirrorless equivalents may be better but the costs are becoming prohibitive.
So how would you compare this lens to an EF-s 17-55 2.8. I use the 17-55 on my Canon R7. Subsequently I’ve picked up a used Canon 5Dmark ll. I wanted a wide angle lens to use on a full frame sensor. I purchased this lens recently. Haven’t even had a chance to use it yet. I figured it is a a great price for an L series lens. Wanted to do some landscape photography and some other stuff. What do you think?
My suggestion would be there’s quite a few cheaper RF/rfs ultra wide zooms you may want to check out now. They may be a little more, but the quality is going to be so much better.
@@TonyMellingerTony, specifically I was just wondering how the Canon EF-s 17-55 2.8 on my R7 compares to the EF 17-40 f4 L on my 5D mark ll for portraits or landscapes, in regards to the quality of the photo that each lens could give me. 👍
Also, I figured this EF 17-40 f4 L on my Canon 5D mark ll would do better than a EF-s 10-18 or the EF-s 10-22 on my Canon R7 for wide angle use. What say you?
@@leskasen1408 Yes, I think it would. I'm not sure you can use EFS lenses on a FF EF mount camera. I'm not sure. Regardless the 17-40 would probably be better.
If I put this lens on a canon Eos RP, can I film in 1080p 50fps?? I need that...right now I have a 10-18mm lens on my RP and i can only film in 4K with low frame rate (24fps) OR only 720p in 50fps...so I have to give up quality OR frame rate and I can’t have both at the same time (normal quality and high frame rate)
I have the Canon EOS R; I upgraded from the 70D. Would your recommend this as my wide angle lens for the EOS R for landscape photography? The options are very limited at this juncture.
Yea I agree with you. Unless you want to spend a time on the 15-35, there’s not a lot of options. I think the 17-40 is good, it’s a little soft for hi res photos, maybe not the best for landscape photography. I do think this lens for the price is a great deal.
Hahah, it’s been awhile since i made this video but i felt like i mentioned it was a fairly soft lens compared to others. And the fact that it was as like old as me so the performance isn’t as good as lenses much newer. 🤷🏼♂️ also gave some broll examples i think.
DANG! Thanks for this breakdown bud. I've been struggling on deciding if its worth buying the new Canon 14-35 f4 L lens for my EOS R. I've been rocking the 24-105 f4 L lens and its great, but I still need that extra ULTRA WIDE angle for mainly my golf vlogs and vlogging. Nice vid man, helps a ton!
Hi Tony, thanks for this video. Very useful! What do you think: I’m about to buy the Canon R6 and I’m thinking about getting just the body and buy a used 17-40 L with it instead of the R6 with the 24-70mm non L kit lens. Both options are similarly priced and its pretty much what my budget allows. So what would you recommend: used 17-40 L or 24-70 non L kit lens? Oh btw, I’ll be using it for video mostly, vlogging and in a studio setup. Talking head videos.
Awesome! You’re going to love the R6. I’m guessing you’re referring to the 24-105mm f4-7.1? I dont see a 24-70 kit. As much as i like the 17-40, for Video, i think you’d be better off with the kit lens for a few reasons. 1, the kit lens is native and will work great with the new technology of the R6. 2, and a biggie, the 17-40 has no IS. Even with the new IBIS, having IS is really really nice for video. 3. The 24-105 focal range is incredible. I’m working on a video right now talking about the 24-105mm F4L lens and I’m just blown away by the versatility of that lens and I think the non L version will have just as much versatility because of the focal length. 4. dont forget you’d need to cough up the extra dough right away for a RF/EF lens adaptor. I wouldn’t be scared of the 7.1. At 105, you’ll still get pleasing bokeh and at the end of the day, both are really good lenses. Either way, i think you’re going to love the setup and cant go wrong, it really just comes down to if you’d rather have everything really wide, or want the versatility of that big zoom on the 24-105. I’d love to hear what you decide!
Tony Mellinger Cool, thank you very much! Yeah I meant the 24-105 indeed, my bad. Well I’m going to think it over a bit more, but this is a very useful insight!
Tony Mellinger Well I went with the 24-105 kit lens. I don’t want to buy an expensive camera and have the feeling I’m not making optimal use of it by not putting an RF-lens on it. Exciting!
That’s a good question. Although the glass is better in the 17-40, the 18-55 lens is much newer. I honestly can’t tell you. But... if you upgrade from a crop sensor camera, the 17-40 will hold its value for you where the kit lens will not work on a bigger frame. Just a thought
Nice review Tony, can you review the Canon 20mm 2.8 too? I am thinking about the 20mm 2.8 or 17-40mm! I am a photographer that wanna have a extra lens for vlog and short movie! 🙏🏼Thanks and greetings from Holland 🇳🇱
I actually found a 17-35 2.8L for 300$ in mint condition from Japan, its the same size of the 17-40, and has a little better low light, its super sharp from 24-35, (i dont know if its the same case for your 17-40)
@@TonyMellinger it's nice to see creators, photographers, UA-camrs talking about what you can do without the latest and greatest and that you can manage perfectly with older gear. Love how you even gave a video sample and noted SS, f-stop, filter or not etc. Keep it up!
Really love your videos buddy! Just nice and straight forward and really interesting topics! I have been thinking of getting this lens for w a while now!, but i am just not to sure if its a good buy. I have the RF 35 1.8, do you think thats a good lens for video work like documentaries? Also i am a Fine art landscape photographer and i need a lot of dynamic range to pull of my style, do you think this would be a good fit? I am currently using the RF 24 -105 f4 for that and its a beautiful and sharp lens! would it make sense to buy the 17-40 if i can use there two? Many thanks buddy, big fan :) Just for a point of reference my instagram is The Vegan Photographer :)
Hey thanks for the kind words. The 35mm 1.8 and the 24-105 are great lenses! I really love the 24-105 for doc style content. The 17-40 would be a great option if you need to capture wider shots like mountain ranges and big open spaces. Honestly though your 24-105 gets you pretty wide. I think a lot of the dynamic range plays more into the camera, and for photos, the EOS R has plenty! The 24-105 will be sharper though because it’s a brand new lens and the RF tech is really good. I’ll check your IG account! I’d say the next range you should look for then is telephoto, there’s several options when it comes to zoom lenses, if you are looking for a budge lens, the 70-300 shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm-refurbished or start looking into your options with a 70-200mm, even the f4 versions are 👌🏻. hopefully this information helps! Thanks again!
@@TonyMellinger Thanks buddy I really appreciate you taking the time to message me back 🙏 I think I have to agree with you to be honest, I think I will get a wide angle lens in the future but maybe not yet as like you say the RF lens is a much Sharper lens 😁 I actually have a 70 200 f4 none is though .. that was one of the things I have been really struggling to bring myself to upgrade .. I have been told the sigma 70 200 sport is supposed to be amazing! Rivaling canons mark 3 .. but is there any point in the upgrade is most of photos are of landscapes and outdoor photoshoots?
@@TonyMellinger - I just wanted to point that out to anyone thinking of buying this lens instead of the 16-35 mm f/4 Canon zoom that does have image stabilization.
It’ll be curious to see how they continue to update lenses with firmware updates now. I really think the 70-200 is the only one I’ve seen come through. Cameras def age faster than lenses. At least in my opinion
@@TonyMellingerI totally agree with you. I have been using for professional use a Canon 24-70 for years. Now I upgraded to a 24-105 f2.8 RF. It’s amazing. There’s plenty of improvement, but not so noticeable as much as camera bodies. Even a 5 year old camera feels old nowadays.
I've had this lens soon after it was brought out all those years ago. To me, it's one of my many best lenses. Using this focal length means I want decent depth of field, making my 16-35mm f2.8 rather lacking, so this lens is almost always my prefered choice shooting at f4. The size and weight are perfect. My interior shots I've taken of hotel rooms on commission is second to none. The sharpness is superb on my Canon 5D Mk4. I have a construction photographer friend who shoots time lapse images of large building projects for his clients. He has four of these lenses. The price alone makes this lens a no brainer for any Canon photographer .. Having studied photography (and Graphic Design) at art college since 1965, I highly recommend this amazing lens ..
Totally agree with you! Thanks for the comments!!
I'm full old skool, I use this lens on a Canon 50D and reckon it delivers great results. I am only a hobbyist and mainly do a mix of light painting, landscape and storm chasing photography. So the fact it's cheap (I paid $230 AU for one of Facebook Marketplace) and is weather resistant is a huge bonus for me.
That’s great. Wow 50D! That’s amazing. I played around with a 10D recently. The ultimate OG
I just bought this lens for my new R50 mainly for the price and to get better landscape photos. Thank you for this video. Really helpful!
Glad I could help!
Just got one, great overview video. Love the color rendering with this lens. It does "bend" straight lines towards the edges but you can fix this in Lightroom with a lens profile. I would recommend it especially on a budget.
Thanks Tony ... I have the R and 17-40, love the combo. Always appreciate your reviews
It’s a very capable lens!
Hey Robert, I have a question for you. I also have an R and I’m thinking about picking up a 17-40, can you tell me how loud the autofocus gets for video? I’d really only be using this for video so autofocus noise is my top priority
"You as a professional" really should've added sample photos, especially because you mounted it on R and also a few notes on how it behaves on the new system comparing to the dslr
For photos it’s pretty soft but you can fix some of that in post. I primarily use this as a video lens. As far as DSLR, all of the ef lenses work better on mirrorless. I just think the tech in these new cameras are exceptional!
I love this lens and have used it on my crop sensor and full frame cameras. Love the beautiful colors!
Agreed! Thanks for watching.
id love to see photos that you've taken with lens lens mounted on the EOS R plz
I bought this lens when it first came out. I was replacing 17-35 that was dying. It was kind of what canon had. It wasn't cheap but wasn't outrageous either. Today, it may not be Canon's best WA zoom but it is still a useful lens and relatively affordable.
Mirrorless equivalents may be better but the costs are becoming prohibitive.
No doubt the mirrorless versions are significantly more expensive!
Great video, I like the vlog info at the very end. Definitely a good lens to know more about
Ya almost forgot about it ha!
So how would you compare this lens to an EF-s 17-55 2.8.
I use the 17-55 on my Canon R7.
Subsequently I’ve picked up a used Canon 5Dmark ll. I wanted a wide angle lens to use on a full frame sensor.
I purchased this lens recently. Haven’t even had a chance to use it yet. I figured it is a a great price for an L series lens. Wanted to do some landscape photography and some other stuff.
What do you think?
My suggestion would be there’s quite a few cheaper RF/rfs ultra wide zooms you may want to check out now. They may be a little more, but the quality is going to be so much better.
@@TonyMellingerTony, specifically I was just wondering how the Canon EF-s 17-55 2.8 on my R7 compares to the EF 17-40 f4 L on my 5D mark ll for portraits or landscapes, in regards to the quality of the photo that each lens could give me. 👍
Also, I figured this EF 17-40 f4 L on my Canon 5D mark ll would do better than a EF-s 10-18 or the EF-s 10-22 on my Canon R7 for wide angle use.
What say you?
@@leskasen1408 Yes, I think it would. I'm not sure you can use EFS lenses on a FF EF mount camera. I'm not sure. Regardless the 17-40 would probably be better.
@@leskasen1408 ohhhh got it. not I'm curious how that EFS 17-55 is doing on the R7! that's an interesting combo!
How would you compare this lens to the sigma 17-35 2.8-4 ex hsm asp?
I’m a canon lens snob 🙈
Love it too. Thanks
Thanks for watching!
Another great vid Tony 👍
Thanks for watching ☺️
Great job! I'm going to be looking at this lens for sure!
🤙🏼
If I put this lens on a canon Eos RP, can I film in 1080p 50fps?? I need that...right now I have a 10-18mm lens on my RP and i can only film in 4K with low frame rate (24fps) OR only 720p in 50fps...so I have to give up quality OR frame rate and I can’t have both at the same time (normal quality and high frame rate)
Yep you sure can as long as it isn’t an ef-s lens.
@@TonyMellinger alright thanks man!
I love mine combined with my R5
Not much to complain about with the R5 ❤️
Great video, thank you.
Thanks for watching!
The AF noise on this lens is loud though which makes it a bad lens for video
Ya it’s not as quiet as some but I almost always use an external mic which solves the problem for the most part.
@@TonyMellinger what external mic do you use to solve the af noise problem?
I have the Canon EOS R; I upgraded from the 70D. Would your recommend this as my wide angle lens for the EOS R for landscape photography? The options are very limited at this juncture.
Yea I agree with you. Unless you want to spend a time on the 15-35, there’s not a lot of options. I think the 17-40 is good, it’s a little soft for hi res photos, maybe not the best for landscape photography. I do think this lens for the price is a great deal.
You said almost nothing about the performance of the lens, but it was interesting to know that you like it because it takes 77mm filters.
Hahah, it’s been awhile since i made this video but i felt like i mentioned it was a fairly soft lens compared to others. And the fact that it was as like old as me so the performance isn’t as good as lenses much newer. 🤷🏼♂️ also gave some broll examples i think.
DANG! Thanks for this breakdown bud. I've been struggling on deciding if its worth buying the new Canon 14-35 f4 L lens for my EOS R. I've been rocking the 24-105 f4 L lens and its great, but I still need that extra ULTRA WIDE angle for mainly my golf vlogs and vlogging. Nice vid man, helps a ton!
Another option that is pretty cheap now is the RF 16mm f2.8. I think it’s only like $300
Can you use it for Christmas Prada?
I’m not sure what Christmas Prada is
Nice video! I am waiting on a used Canon17-35mm f/2.8 L lens I got on Amazon. I wonder how it would compare to 17-40mm f4 L lens?
Yea for sure. I’ve never used a 17-35
For the price Great lens 😊
Sure is!
Hi Tony, thanks for this video. Very useful! What do you think: I’m about to buy the Canon R6 and I’m thinking about getting just the body and buy a used 17-40 L with it instead of the R6 with the 24-70mm non L kit lens. Both options are similarly priced and its pretty much what my budget allows. So what would you recommend: used 17-40 L or 24-70 non L kit lens? Oh btw, I’ll be using it for video mostly, vlogging and in a studio setup. Talking head videos.
Awesome! You’re going to love the R6. I’m guessing you’re referring to the 24-105mm f4-7.1? I dont see a 24-70 kit. As much as i like the 17-40, for Video, i think you’d be better off with the kit lens for a few reasons. 1, the kit lens is native and will work great with the new technology of the R6. 2, and a biggie, the 17-40 has no IS. Even with the new IBIS, having IS is really really nice for video. 3. The 24-105 focal range is incredible. I’m working on a video right now talking about the 24-105mm F4L lens and I’m just blown away by the versatility of that lens and I think the non L version will have just as much versatility because of the focal length. 4. dont forget you’d need to cough up the extra dough right away for a RF/EF lens adaptor. I wouldn’t be scared of the 7.1. At 105, you’ll still get pleasing bokeh and at the end of the day, both are really good lenses. Either way, i think you’re going to love the setup and cant go wrong, it really just comes down to if you’d rather have everything really wide, or want the versatility of that big zoom on the 24-105. I’d love to hear what you decide!
Tony Mellinger Cool, thank you very much! Yeah I meant the 24-105 indeed, my bad. Well I’m going to think it over a bit more, but this is a very useful insight!
Tony Mellinger Well I went with the 24-105 kit lens. I don’t want to buy an expensive camera and have the feeling I’m not making optimal use of it by not putting an RF-lens on it. Exciting!
Maarten Janssen nice move. I think you made the right choice. And if I’m the future, you can always pick up a 17-40 later. 👊🏼
Love love love this lens!
Awesome! It def gets mixed reviews. I’m a huge fan of it just for the price point
@@TonyMellinger Very fond of it for it's more cinematic qualities for sure
Can this fit on my M50 with an adapter?
Great video!
Sure can! Just use a M to EF adaptor and you’re good to go!
@@TonyMellinger Sweet deal. Thanks for the response! Guess what's on this guys Christmas list now?! Haha Cheers mate... from the great white north.
@@RealCopsReelLife I have an idea 😎
Is this sharper lens than today's cheap stm kit lens of sl2 or sl3
That’s a good question. Although the glass is better in the 17-40, the 18-55 lens is much newer. I honestly can’t tell you. But... if you upgrade from a crop sensor camera, the 17-40 will hold its value for you where the kit lens will not work on a bigger frame. Just a thought
Is this lens still 16-40 mm even on a full frame eos r?
Yea, it’s still 17-40mm. Only if it’s an ef-s lens is it different
With the ibis of R6 and R5 i think it's going to be a value for money
Yea! It just made all of those non IS lenses more valuable.
Nice review Tony, can you review the Canon 20mm 2.8 too? I am thinking about the 20mm 2.8 or 17-40mm! I am a photographer that wanna have a extra lens for vlog and short movie! 🙏🏼Thanks and greetings from Holland 🇳🇱
Hmm! I’ve never used the 20mm!. I have used the 24mm f2.8 IS and really love that lens!
It might be a cheaper replacement for ef1635f4 IS
Yea
I actually found a 17-35 2.8L for 300$ in mint condition from Japan, its the same size of the 17-40, and has a little better low light, its super sharp from 24-35, (i dont know if its the same case for your 17-40)
Good find!
I really Love it great Lens
Can’t complain for a lens so old and yet still so applicable
Excellent
Thanks so much 👊🏼
@@TonyMellinger it's nice to see creators, photographers, UA-camrs talking about what you can do without the latest and greatest and that you can manage perfectly with older gear. Love how you even gave a video sample and noted SS, f-stop, filter or not etc. Keep it up!
Really love your videos buddy! Just nice and straight forward and really interesting topics! I have been thinking of getting this lens for w a while now!, but i am just not to sure if its a good buy. I have the RF 35 1.8, do you think thats a good lens for video work like documentaries? Also i am a Fine art landscape photographer and i need a lot of dynamic range to pull of my style, do you think this would be a good fit? I am currently using the RF 24 -105 f4 for that and its a beautiful and sharp lens! would it make sense to buy the 17-40 if i can use there two? Many thanks buddy, big fan :) Just for a point of reference my instagram is The Vegan Photographer :)
Hey thanks for the kind words. The 35mm 1.8 and the 24-105 are great lenses! I really love the 24-105 for doc style content. The 17-40 would be a great option if you need to capture wider shots like mountain ranges and big open spaces. Honestly though your 24-105 gets you pretty wide. I think a lot of the dynamic range plays more into the camera, and for photos, the EOS R has plenty! The 24-105 will be sharper though because it’s a brand new lens and the RF tech is really good. I’ll check your IG account! I’d say the next range you should look for then is telephoto, there’s several options when it comes to zoom lenses, if you are looking for a budge lens, the 70-300 shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-ii-usm-refurbished or start looking into your options with a 70-200mm, even the f4 versions are 👌🏻. hopefully this information helps! Thanks again!
@@TonyMellinger Thanks buddy I really appreciate you taking the time to message me back 🙏 I think I have to agree with you to be honest, I think I will get a wide angle lens in the future but maybe not yet as like you say the RF lens is a much Sharper lens 😁 I actually have a 70 200 f4 none is though .. that was one of the things I have been really struggling to bring myself to upgrade .. I have been told the sigma 70 200 sport is supposed to be amazing! Rivaling canons mark 3 .. but is there any point in the upgrade is most of photos are of landscapes and outdoor photoshoots?
Eh keep the f4. Its a solid lens!!
@@TonyMellinger Thanks buddy i will take your advice! your a top guy bud! :)
Without image stabilization, the 17-40 mm is a no-go for me.
That’s understandable.
@@TonyMellinger - I just wanted to point that out to anyone thinking of buying this lens instead of the 16-35 mm f/4 Canon zoom that does have image stabilization.
@@pacificostudios it’s a valid point but to get IS you’ll pay an extra $200-300 typically. I went with the 17-40 for that reason alone.
Nice video but dear lord was that song a lot lol
Lol?
I own a Helios 44-2, sharper than many of the newer lenses, since there are no UV, Anti whatever filters!
Interesting! I’ve never used it. Does it have AF? That’s one of the big advantages of the R5 and R6 for me
@@TonyMellinger it's 70 years old
1:49 "lenses do not age as fast as technology" ... You dont consider lenses to be technology? Ok.. Im not going to waste my time watching any further.
You have many more generations of a camera compared to a lens
@@Stan_the_Belgian its the wording man, the wording
It’ll be curious to see how they continue to update lenses with firmware updates now. I really think the 70-200 is the only one I’ve seen come through. Cameras def age faster than lenses. At least in my opinion
@@TonyMellingerI totally agree with you. I have been using for professional use a Canon 24-70 for years. Now I upgraded to a 24-105 f2.8 RF. It’s amazing. There’s plenty of improvement, but not so noticeable as much as camera bodies. Even a 5 year old camera feels old nowadays.
The worst serie L that i ever had
Why is that?
10 minutes of yapping, 1 minute of ungraded faded look footage.. man
🤣 thanks for watching
good info, but might I suggest less talking head, more examples with your voice over them. cheers.
Nobody needs to see my face huh. 😆 thanks for watching!