EF 17-40mm f/4 L - Keep or sell?

[DaBrownCO]

I haven't used this lens much so am thinking of selling. However, not sure if I'm 'missing' something about the lens that would make keeping it bea better decision.

I have a Sigma 24mm/f 1.4, Sigma 50 mm/f1.4, Canon 24-105mm/f4L, and Canon 70-200mm/f 2.8 L ISII. Camera is 6D.

Would welcome comments from those who may have much more experience with this lens than I do.

Thanks

[ScottyP]

Wide angle really benefits from careful composition. If you just shoot at objects in the middle to far distance everything can seem too far away to be interesting.  

I bought a 16-35 and experienced a twinge of buyers remorse after shooting the first time. Everything was tiny, far away and boring.  After reading some internet articles on composition for WA, I got into it. Put something in the foreground for the distortion to create drama.  

[RobertTheFat · Accepted solution]

---

@DaBrownCO wrote:

I haven't used this lens much so am thinking of selling. However, not sure if I'm 'missing' something about the lens that would make keeping it bea better decision.

I have a Sigma 24mm/f 1.4, Sigma 50 mm/f1.4, Canon 24-105mm/f4L, and Canon 70-200mm/f 2.8 L ISII. Camera is 6D.

Would welcome comments from those who may have much more experience with this lens than I do.

Thanks

---

I think the 17-40 is probably out of production. But my recollection is that many considered it a mediocre lens, some even questioning whether it deserved its "L" status. It was followed by the various versions of the 16-35, which have been widely admired. I have the f/4 version and am very happy with it. The Mark II and III versions of the f/2.8 have an excellent reputation.

As Scott observes, unless you're trying for a dramatic placement of a foreground object against a panoramic background, it's easy to overlook your WA lens. But there can be times when you just plain have to have it. That realization hit me several years ago when I had to photograph our City Hall at work. I climbed up on the roof of the building across the street, but discovered that with my 50D and 18-50mm lens, I just couldn't get it all in. I started looking for a Tokina 11-16 (the popular APS-C WA lens at the time) the next day.

[ebiggs1]

If you want the best buy in a WA, the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens is the ticket.  Extremely high quality at around $700 bucks.

[DaBrownCO]

I do have the Sigma 24 mm as a wide lens, and to be honest, I'm kind of enthralled by it. Yes, I need to have an imposing foreground, but I love the fact of getting everything in in one shot. As you say Bob, there are times when you just get stuck.

I also consider the 17-40 as mediocre, and also am not sure about the L rating.

I like the idea of the 16-35mm though at a faster lens. That may be my plan. It's either that or an extended telephoto prime, say 300mm +, since the 16-35 would be more a nice to have. With my 24mm and 50mm Sigma's, I'm pretty set unless I am a pro, which is not the case.

Thanks,
David