Having other Canon lenses (like 100 and 50 mm), I just got my first L series lens, the 17-40mm f4, and after trying it a few times with 7D video, I'm finding that the look is a little soft compared to the other prime lenses. Is it possible that it could be the lens? The others are sharper and more dynamic. When I bought it, I was told that this lens was like going to another level, but this may be stepping down a notch. Could it be the lens?
Could it be the lens?
- Thread starter enrico
- Start date
The Canon 100 F2 is an EXCEPTIONALLY sharp lens. I know the 50 (1.8 at least) is pretty darn sharp too. I know zooms are a little less sharp in general, but I would think an L lens would be very sharp as well. So comparing it to your 100, it may not seem like much difference. Just my uneducated $0.02.
Yes, the Canon 50mm 1.8 is wonderful, and the macro 100mm 2.8 is even nicer. On video, I was expecting a stellar level lift in dynamic sharpness from an L series. But perhaps I'm not using it at it's best. I read somewhere recently that it gets really sharp at f11 and still have to do those tests to get to know the lens. The reviews on it are wonderful, so I was really getting excited. But is it possible that it's because it's not a prime like the others or maybe this particular one is not working properly?
I appreciate any help or feedback on this matter.
I appreciate any help or feedback on this matter.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
It could be the lens. I haven't used them myself but I recall reading in several sources that the L series glass quality control can be a little hit and miss. A good one is very good and a bad one is mediocre. Others have mentioned having to return lenses. Sounds to me like what you're describing.
Because of lack of experience with this, it's hard to know whether being underwhelmed by the lens is normal...especially expecting something, "on another level," from an L series lens. The 17-40mm cinematic wide angle is a fantastic fit to the other lens. But the other lenses are sharper, dynamic.
I appreciate your information on this matter, but if it is this lens, and I exchange it, what should I expect and how will I know? Anyone out there have experience with this lens that could provide some insight?
I appreciate your information on this matter, but if it is this lens, and I exchange it, what should I expect and how will I know? Anyone out there have experience with this lens that could provide some insight?
Detailed lens review ---> Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens Review
If you click on the ISO 12233 Crops section you can compare this lens to the much more expensive Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM lens. ( the 17-40mm zoom holds up very well against the more expensive lens )
My guess is that you need to shoot some high resolution still photos on a tripod to really see the detail this lens can capture, as 1080 HD video captures less than 2 Mpix of detail ( and Canon DSLR video is not known for sharpness ), so you really won't be able to see what this lens can do.
If you click on the ISO 12233 Crops section you can compare this lens to the much more expensive Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM lens. ( the 17-40mm zoom holds up very well against the more expensive lens )
My guess is that you need to shoot some high resolution still photos on a tripod to really see the detail this lens can capture, as 1080 HD video captures less than 2 Mpix of detail ( and Canon DSLR video is not known for sharpness ), so you really won't be able to see what this lens can do.
As you said, and the article confirms "... the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens is a comparable lens in terms of image quality."
I'm comparing it primarily to the other 2 (non L series) lenses using video. My work with DSLR's (7D) is as a videographer, not formally a photographer. Even with its limitations, DSLR video can still hold up well in sharpness and dynamics as I've found with the other Canon lenses. Just wondering how this lens should compare?
I'm comparing it primarily to the other 2 (non L series) lenses using video. My work with DSLR's (7D) is as a videographer, not formally a photographer. Even with its limitations, DSLR video can still hold up well in sharpness and dynamics as I've found with the other Canon lenses. Just wondering how this lens should compare?
Last edited:
It's still pretty low rez, especially if you compare Canon DSLR footage with a camera like a Canon C100 / C300.
I shot video with a Canon 60D for about 4 months, and then sold everything after using a GH2 for one month. The GH2 footage was significantly sharper and it showed in every shot that had a lot of detail.
Eventually I would like to move up to a Canon C100, but for now I have to live with my GH2/GH3 cameras.
Fortinbras
Member
In my opinion, some (even 'cheap') prime lenses will easily beat L-glass zoom lenses. I am not alone in this: http://digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best
And here: http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/canon-prime-non-l-lenses-vs-l-lenses-for-video.1098/
And here: http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/canon-prime-non-l-lenses-vs-l-lenses-for-video.1098/
I would agree when it comes to shooting high resolution still photos, but 1080 HD video is very low resolution ( less than 2 Mpix ) compared to a 18 Mpix ( or higher ) still photo.
I will disagree with the notion that because we're only getting 1920x1080 encoding that high end glass is not a big advantage. I will concur that primes vs zooms in general make a significant difference in the sharpness in video mode, but even better so are the sharper L lenses which have a higher brightness, contrast and bokeh.
The best of the current crop of L lenses, even the zooms, improve video quality and especially sharpness significantly. Especially when on the edge with available light. I believe this is due to a higher resolution getting to the sensor before the codec, thus allowing the highest possible output after. If the improvement where to come after the codec, I could see how there would be no benefit.
Whether that improvement is worth almost an order of magnitude higher price is rather questionable though
Cheers,
Pete
The best of the current crop of L lenses, even the zooms, improve video quality and especially sharpness significantly. Especially when on the edge with available light. I believe this is due to a higher resolution getting to the sensor before the codec, thus allowing the highest possible output after. If the improvement where to come after the codec, I could see how there would be no benefit.
Whether that improvement is worth almost an order of magnitude higher price is rather questionable though
Cheers,
Pete
If you got the 17-40 just for video, you'll do just as well with the kit lens. In video, the only benefit to better lenses is if they're faster.
That being said, I shoot a lot of stills with the 17-40 (full frame and crop) and it's one of my favorite lenses. Got it cheap, too, rated "ugly" at KEH but its mechanics and glass are perfect. Like someone else suggested, shoot some stills with it to see how it performs. But if you're only interested in using it for video, it's a waste.
That being said, I shoot a lot of stills with the 17-40 (full frame and crop) and it's one of my favorite lenses. Got it cheap, too, rated "ugly" at KEH but its mechanics and glass are perfect. Like someone else suggested, shoot some stills with it to see how it performs. But if you're only interested in using it for video, it's a waste.
FilmBrute
Member
Your findings seem very normal. 100mm macro is extremely sharp. 50mm is pretty sharp as well. I'd figure they both beat the 17-40mm. This is a nice site for direct lens comparisons: digital picture