What's wrong with the Canon 17-40 f4 L? Buying a new lens.

Get it. It's cheap because it's been replaced by faster lenses

>>3126375
I use it for landscape mostly, it's a cheap L lens that is well built and has only minor drop off on the edges.

Pretty versatile imo

>>3126375
don't use FF lens on a APS-C body (except tele lenses)

>>3127000
why would this be a thing to avoid? i hope you arent saying this for a reason other than the crop factor or else you might need to be evaluated for mental retardation

>>3127000
Are you sure you're not thinking don't use crop lenses on a ff sensor?

>>3127033
Canon's L glass is optimized for average sharpness across the frame, while Nikon glass is optimized for the center while letting the periphery slip somewhat. The 17-40 is kinda meh on crop because of this, but on full frame it really comes to its own.

>>3127038
Oh no it's retarded.

No company's entire range of lenses are optimized for anything. Each lens is optimized differently.

There are L lenses with crisp edges and L lenses with blurry mess edges. There are non-L lenses with crisp edges and non-L lenses with blurry mess edges. There are L lenses with less center clarity than non-L lenses and there are non-L lenses with greater edge clarity than L lenses.

The closest thing in reality to approach the silliness of what you said are Canon EF-S lenses and whatever their Nikon equivalent is that actually ARE designed just for APS-C crops.

tl;dr u dum

There's a cashback thing going on at a local store making the 17-40 less than 600 dollars brand new.

The money is burning in my pocket right now.

>>3127042
$350 used nigga just get used

>>3127042
Dude, the 17-40 is film era trash, forget about it.
People are dropping 16-35's like they're hot these days now that the version 3 f/2.8 is out, check your local gumtree for that.

File: 71782030.jpg (9KB, 368x158px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 368x158px

>>3127040

>>3126375
>apertures I use most; f4 through f11

At those apertures you can take sharp pictures with a potato.
Just use your kit lens?

>>3126375
The 10-18 is sharper and has less distortion and is actually wide.

>>3127040
Nah, you may want to shorten it by attempting to insult me, but what you said doesn't really change things. This particular lens is a good case of one example you pointed out. Perhaps my comment was too broad-stroked, I'll recognize that. Now for this specific lens, it's moderate to good in general on full frame, a solid lanscape lens. However this lens doesn't really shine on APS-C, and is easily outperformed by many premium EFS lenses that cover the same range.

>>3127110

I believe you meant to say Tokina 11-16 2.8, it curbstops the 17-40 in the sharpness department and has 2.8 aperture and covers FF at 16mm

>>3127110
>>3127157
I don't need that zoom range tho.

Like I said in OP, really what I was looking for was a prime somewhere around 30mm, and after looking at results, the 17-40 seemed to be on par or superior to Canon primes at the narrow end of that zoom range. Since they're about the same price, and since the 17-40 offers a zoom range and a red ring around the bell, I figured it was the right choice.

Are there any other primes from 25-35mm I should be looking at for Canon? Sharpness is a must and clean bokeh would be very apprecaited.

>>3127200
Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art

>>3127042
lurk ebay/sale pages for a used 16-35 2.8 imo

>>3126375
>f4
because it's slow as fuck

>>3126375
nothing wrong with it, guy shot the apple wallpaper with it

>>3127154
are you slow? he's pretty straightforward, if you just extracted an insult from that post i think you should go back to r3ddît or whatever cancerous forum site you came from

>>3127200

20-35mm L

>>3127200
The Efs 24mm f2.8 stm is dirt cheap and sharper wide open. Why wouldn't you just get that?

>>3127157
Maybe it stomps whatever POS Nikon has to offer.

>>3127200
The new 16-35 f4 is, is a fucking dope lens.

Super sharp across the whole frame
Non bulbous front so no crazy ghosting/flares
Compact & light
Great value

It's the only uwa zoom I'd recommend over the 17-40 on a bang for buck basis.

although I've used it on a 5D2 and 1DX it's a great lens

using it on aps-c essentially makes it like a 24-70 but slower

>>3127271
His post is as straightforward as it is uninformative. He's just listing all possible scenarios, and decided to tl;dr it with "u dum". The point is he didn't give any valuable info regarding this specific lens. This place exceeds others including reddit and 9gag in cancerosity, and you're a prime example of the filth in this cesspool, so get off your high horse.

>>3127157
>tokina 11-16

get the fuck out of here and stop recommended obsolete lenses.

The Tokina 11-20 has been out for years and is superior.

>>3126375
>>3127000
>>3126515
>>3127042
>>3127056
>>3127157
>>3127200
>>3127240
>>3127205
>>3127290
>>3127353
>>3127373

OP is asking for a specific zoom range and noone of you try hards recommended the Sigma 18-35 f1.8?

It's super fast and has the exact focal range OP asks for. It's also sharp as hell.

>>3127657
No one wants to spend that much on a lens that will only have working autofocus for 6 months if you're lucky.