about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
514 982025 Mar 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_

Specifications:
A new and affordable L-series ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that's ideal for both film and digital SLRs. Superior optics are assured by the use of three aspherical lens elements, in addition to a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass element. Optical coatings are optimized for use with digital cameras. This lens focuses as close as 11 inches (0.28m), and offers both Canon's full-time manual focus and a powerful ring-type USM for fast and silent AF. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers the choice of screw-in 77mm filters or a holder in the rear of the lens for up to three gel filters. Finally, it offers weather-resistant construction similar to other high-end L-series lenses.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
       †††
jkataine
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 16, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 3
Review Date: Feb 20, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Build, fast, sharp, price
Cons:
None for this price

One of my favourite lens and cheap even its L.

Feb 20, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jkataine to your Buddy List  
BKeith1
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 18, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
Review Date: Feb 18, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, great colors, excellent design.
Cons:
Beginnings of the L addiction and no inexpensive cure known.

This is my first L lens and it is an incredible addition to my 40D. Photos are extremely sharp at all lengths and colors are excellent. Strongly recommend it for a walkaround - its design and build quality just make you feel more creative. I am looking for my second L lens now. Thank you Canon.

Feb 18, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add BKeith1 to your Buddy List  
Perry Ge
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 9
Review Date: Feb 11, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: IQ, weight, price.
Cons:
Light fall-off, barrel distortion.

I use this lens on a 5D, and it's one of the best I've ever had. It beat my old 50 1.8 prime's IQ hands down, and gives my 200L prime a run for its money.

I don't know what's going on when other people are bashing its IQ, or if I just got a superb copy, but this is one of the best lenses I have ever had the pleasure of owning. It is very good at 40mm, and astonishingly good at 17mm - very sharp, contrasty, and the colours are wonderful.

On the downside there is some light falloff, especially when I use lee filters (I do landscapes) and barrel distortion at the wide end, but nothing to get me whining about.

A very good lens for the price. Highly recommended. It's a good walkaround on a crop but on full frame it really explodes to life - the perfect landscape lens.


Feb 11, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Perry Ge to your Buddy List  
epphoto
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5129
Review Date: Jan 26, 2008 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

Pros: Great Price for L-class lens
Cons:
Image quality

Well i don't really have nothing good to say about the lens
I don't want to go in to allot detail here, but after 5 of them and trying to find the
sharpest one , I had to spent the extra money to buy the 16-35mm
The last one i have sent it back to Canon 3 times and never came back sharp
The only thing you have to do is , just look your picture at 100%
If you're going to do any big prints like 20''x30'' i will recommend to stay way for them
it worth to spent the extra $$$ and get the Canon 16-35mm MarkI or MarkII


Jan 26, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add epphoto to your Buddy List  
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
Review Date: Jan 24, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $660.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Price-to-Value ratio is very good for this lens. Works fine for landscape. Build quality if nothing-less than what one would expect from an L-series lens.
Cons:
Since I use an apc sensor body aka Canon 30D this lens works really nice IMHO.

I really like this lens and use it a lot to shoot outdoor landscapes. I've got a decent set of sample photos here: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Canon%20Zooms/Canon%20EF%2017-40mm%20f4%20L/

-Roy


Jan 24, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add lextalionis to your Buddy List  
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Nov 6, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008 Recommend? | Price paid: $1,000.00

Pros: Lightweight, sharp, uses 77mm filters.
Cons:
Not truly weather sealed unless front filter used. Vignets once front filter is used. Bad image quality at corners on FF. TERRIBLE BARREL DISTORTION on objects closer than 5 meters or so.

If you are thinking of getting this lens to photograph architecture, think again. It's ok for landscape shots though. Canon really needs to make a good quality no distortion wide angle rectilinear prime at about 16mm f/1.4 that costs the same as the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII.

You can't call a lens rectilinear if there is barrel distortion. You should call it "We tried to make it rectilinear but it was too hard so we left some barrel distortion (aka fisheye) in there for you. have a nice day"

I guess this lens suits most uses. Just not things with straight lines that you want to keep straight.


Jan 21, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Maliketh to your Buddy List  
aestiva.nl
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Image quality, Build quality, focus speed
Cons:
Wrong lens hood for 1.6 camer's.

After upgrading from the excellent Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8 ( I missed the focus speed en build quality) I also really thought that this was Canon worst L lens. Ik couldn't believe all the positive story's on this forum and sites like the digitalpicture.com or photozone.de

Well, last week I tested my lens at Rofa Repair in Den Haag en the problem was that I have a litte backfocus wich was the reason for the softness.

After calibrating my 17-40, the sharpness is almost a little bit better than Tamron 17-50 but the clearness is much better and the same as my 70-200 4L. Excellent color, saturation en contrast. I will keep this lens my whole life!



Jan 21, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add aestiva.nl to your Buddy List  
roberto1979
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1367
Review Date: Jan 17, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $525.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Build, image quality even in the corners, weight, price
Cons:
none

There's been a lot of talk these days about Nikons 14-24 WA and it got me curious. I'm not really a pixel peeper, but I decided to do some test shots with my 17-40 and I was really impressed with the corner sharpness on my 5D. I personally picked this lens because I hike a lot, I'm broke, and I shoot on a tripod. If weight is a factor, price is a factor, and f/2.8 is not a factor, this could be the lens for you.

Jan 17, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add roberto1979 to your Buddy List  
pumbaa
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 18, 2007
Location: France
Posts: 30
Review Date: Jan 15, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Contrusction, sharpness, Fast and silent AF speed
Cons:

About more than a year using it, all i can say about this lens is that it is the best bang for the bucks.

At a reasonable price, we have L construction, USM and the very good sharpness. CA and flare are very well controlled. But I have to test 3 copies to get the very good one, two others have some border sharpness problems on a full-frame camera, well it depends on QC of Canon, not the lens itself. This lens has beautiful color rendition as of Canonís L lens, fast but sometimes not really reliable focusing mechanism. High distortion at almost all focal length makes it hard to be a good portrait lens even on crop cameras where the effective focal of the lens is 27-64. Contrast is a bit dull due to its max aperture is just F4. If youíre using crop camera, just go for the efs 17-55 2.8 IS or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and your photo will get better contrast and, do you think f2.8 is the same as f4?

Some people hesitates this baby and his big brother, the 16-35 2.8 II. Have a chance to have all of them; I can tell you that, they are worth their price. The 16-35 II is sharper wide open than the 17-4 at F4 and has noticeable better contrast, better corner sharpness and better exposure but for double the priceÖ so itís not fair to compare.

Sample@f13

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/1080751717_15ccdb2a10_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1108/1216906897_b9abc6430b_o.jpg

www.pumbaa32.com



Jan 15, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add pumbaa to your Buddy List  
Aaron Fuchs
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 12, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
Review Date: Jan 12, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: IQ, wide, not too expensive, built quality
Cons:
not f2.8, not 17-60mm, does not cook foot

nice, nice, nice, ...

Jan 12, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aaron Fuchs to your Buddy List  
smarinic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 7
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: build quality excelent, colors, quite sharp
Cons:
hood is wierd, could be couple of mm longer or wider

Using it with a 30D for a year now, and must say I am completely happy with it. I really like it to be built as a tank, may times this feature comes handy in crowds of Hanoi and Pakistan... IQ is great, sharpness is consistent from F4 onwards.

Dec 23, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add smarinic to your Buddy List  
Ghost
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 22, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2014
Review Date: Nov 15, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $670.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Great Price for L-class lens, weather-proof, nice size... not bulky, beautiful colours, consistently sharp wide open (but not as sharp as my 70-200 F4L)
Cons:
Weird hood. tele-end could be longer. 50mm would be great!

I waited a few months of usage before posting my comments. I have been a skeptic of this lens for a long time preferring the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as the better choice especially factoring the price.
However thanks to some great deals going on, I decided to purchase one and try it out after all I can always sell it. L-lens hold their value well.
I am pleasantly surprised that this lens produces beautiful colour renditions. I have a 10-22 for my home interior work. And i am never that impressed with its colours and contrast although a quick trip to LR usually perk things up. With the 17-40L, I don't have to do much with the original image. It is also sharp.
A good lens for the price.
However i am still torn about it being a walk-around lens for my 30d as I already have a 28-105mkII which has longer reach despite a narrower wide-end. So it's tough to decide which to bring out on outings. at 105mm I can get beautiful portrait shots with the 28-105 but the 40mm tele-end isn't optimal. So I am still reluctant to let go of my 28-105mkII. We'll see....


Nov 15, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Ghost to your Buddy List  
guillaumebegin
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Review Date: Nov 10, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Compact size, Excellent (as usual) L construction, Weather sealed, Excellent walkaround lens for a 1.6x body, Tack sharp in the center, Excellent quality/price ratio
Cons:
Not as wide has I would have expect (1.6X crop factor :-( ), F/4 is a bit slow in low light situation, Borders are a little bit soft (but it is not a big deal)

I love it!

Nov 10, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add guillaumebegin to your Buddy List  
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
Review Date: Nov 3, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Supersharp files ,strong made,good sexy design,nicely made and very well made pics its a true gem.
Cons:
None-

This must be Canons little gem,paired with any Canon DSLR and alike youll get pro look files and pics ,its very good made The 17-40 is even made in japan with weather sealed design (Canon are you listening ? keep it simple stupids = succes ).
On an FOV crop 1,6 camera its perfect ,need i say more?


Nov 3, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PJ Fish to your Buddy List  
gobenho
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 30, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: My copy is super-sharp at all focal lengths. Nice contrasty images.
Cons:
None. People who complain that it's not f/2.8 should get the 16-35 or the 17-55.

I bought this lens for a trip to China that I recently took. Along with this lens I also packed a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. The 70-200mm stayed in my bag almost the entire time! The 17-40 had the perfect focal range on my crop body (20d) and I never felt like it was too short.

For street photography, f/2.8 is too narrow of a depth of field so f/4.0 isn't really a handicap. Also, anything longer than the 40mm on this lens makes me feel too much like a paparazzi for this type of photography (another reason why my big-white lens stayed in its bag most of the time).

For night photography (in the city), I set my camera to Manual mode f/4.0, 1/30th and 800/1600iso. I rarely encountered a situation where there was not enough available light to get the shot (probably because the streets/markets were fairly well lit in China).

For the price and the features, this lens is hard to beat.


Oct 30, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gobenho to your Buddy List  
bergie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $575.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Rugged build; image quality; price
Cons:
None for the money

I can't compare this lens to the 16-35 since I can't afford it, but from the landscape shots I've taken, I'm more than happy with it.

I've seen the reviews of people complaining about corner softness, but for landcapes, I'm always stopping it way down anyway, so the fact it's an f/4 intead of 2.8 doesn't matter to me and I'm much happier to save the $1000 for the replacement of the 5D.

I have this mounted on a 30D and it definitely is not as wide as the 10-22 I had, but the color rendition does seem to be better, especially for blue skies.

This shot is with no PP: http://bergquist.smugmug.com/photos/211842109-M.jpg



Oct 29, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add bergie to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
514 982025 Mar 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next