topic Re: 17-40 mm Still Ok? in EF & RF Lenses

17-40 mm Still Ok?

xzebra — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:51:58 GMT

Looking to purchase the 17-40mm lens and was wondering if this lens is still ok even to age? I certainly don't want to pay double the price if I don't need.

Secondary question....When using this for primarly landscapes, how can I proctect water, dust and other elements when in the field with my 5D III? This would be my first weather sealed lens so I am a bit new to this.

Re: 17-40 mm Still Ok?

wq9nsc — Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:31:54 GMT

I bought a EF 17-40 F4 back in 2005 and although it isn't one of my most often used lens I have been happy with the image quality. If you think you may need the extra stop, then the 16--35 F2.8 might be worth the extra cost to you but for what I needed that wasn't a major consideration.

To complete the weather sealing, this lens needs a clear, UV, or other filter screwed into the front. If you buy a used one, make sure that the sealing gasket is in good shape.

I shoot sports with 1 series bodies with several different L series telephoto primes and zoom lens and although this combination is rated for pretty nasty weather I still use the Canon combined body and lens raincoat if there is more than a mist/drizzle.

Rodger

Re: 17-40 mm Still Ok?

ebiggs1 — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:34:08 GMT

The ef 14-40mm f4 L is as good today as it ever was. I was completely happy with mine. I fell for the new ef 16-35mm f2.8 L and wish I had the 17-40 back. If you want the best lens in this category look at the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8.

"...how can I proctect water, dust and other elements..."

In a word, you can't, or wait that was two words! You can have some satifiction knowing that a little water splashed on the lens and camera is probably OK. Wet is not. A few rain drops OK, dump a water cooler on it, NO. I don't remember if the 17-40mm needs a front filter to fully protect it or not. Some but not all Canon lenses do.If it does get a B+W protecto. The 5 series is not as fully weather sealed as the more pro level 1 series.

Re: 17-40 mm Still Ok?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:05 GMT

This type question comes up pretty often. The answer is always the lens is as good today as it was way back when. If you thought it OK then, you will love it today. This assumes you are getting a properly working lens of course.

The lens is not weather "sealed". No Canon lens I know of is. They are weather resistant or better water resistant. They can't get wet but they can get splashed on. If the rear cap is off it will get dirty and dusty inside just like any other open container. As noted above the 17-40 L is "weather-sealed" but requires a UV or protecto filter to complete the so-called sealing.

This is my case with the 17-40mm f4L that I owned for a long time. Canon came out with the 16-65mm f2.8L and I wanted all my general use lenses to be f2.8 so I bought one. It is an OK lens but not a great lens. I wish I hadn't sold my 17-40mil for it. It was better than the 16-65m I bought. I have since replaced the 16-35mm f2.8L with a Tokina at-X PRO 16-28mm F2.8 FX Lens. I am very happy with it. I am not sure Tokina still makes this lens but I think they have a new model that I have not tried but may be worth checking out. About the same build and weather resistant (sealing).

Large companies or huge companies like Canon deal on quantity not individual. So if one ot two lenses slip through that are just par or slightly below, no big deal to them. Its just the way we do business. A certain amount of any mass manufactured stuff will be lesser quality. I say this because some folks I know like their 16-35mm zoom. However, I see Canon came out with a updated version so that leads me to believe there was something wrong with a lot of them. You don't update some item or lens if there are no issues with it.

They did the same thing to the best in the world ef 70-200mm f2.8L II replacing it with version III. How do you improve the already best lens? You add a super duper lens coating. Some say, so what just a lens coating? Big deal. But it is a big deal and a very difficult process to add to the essentially identical 70-200 mil lens which is now even better albeit slight than version II.