 |
|
|
jamato8
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2127
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
From about 20 up and at 3.5F up this lens is very, very sharp. At 35 and anywhere from F4 to f8 I have often confused it with my 35L, it is that sharp. This lens has served me in many situations for many years.
|
|
Cons:
|
a little soft at 17 but I remember this most of the time when shooting. Could have better weather sealing.
|
|
|
I find that on my 5D I get better results than I did on my 1v. Why I am not sure but I enjoy this lens and use it in conjunction with my 135L all of the time. I was caught in a heavy downpoor while doing some work in China and it took in more moisture than I thought it would. After a day in an airconditioned room, which dries the air, it was fine and the images continue to impress me. This was a good purchase and as mentioned above, this lens has served me well for many years.
|
|
 Sep 25, 2006
|
|
deepimpact
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Location: Thailand
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $528.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My lens is very sharp at both ends.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is flat & wide. Uncomfortable to pack in my bag.
|
|
|
I find mine very sharp. I bought it in e-bay and it came with everything including the new soft case. My copy is excellent.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2006
|
|
LgnAdams
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 27, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 219
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp most of the time, solid construction, absolute workhorse lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at times, some red and green flaring toward the corners. Monster hood.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for portraits and wedding work, and it has more than paid for itself. It's great on my 20D for getting around in the crowd. I have to keep the hood separate in my gadget bag, it won't fit in a pocket thanks to its width. I recommend this or the 16-35mm without fail.
|
|
|
May 29, 2006
|
|
Liquidpics
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1107
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp lens from 17 through 35mm @ f/2.8. It's fast and silent like most L's also delivering great color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only negative (compared to the 16-35mm) is it's minimum focusing distance isn't that close.
|
|
|
If your on a budget and looking for a lens that performs like the 16-35mm this lens is the closest thing out there. At about half the price it is unbeatable! I just wish it had the ability to focus closer to the subject like it's big brother. It is sharp throughout and it's AF performs great in all lighting conditions. Make sure you ask the right questions before purchasing one second hand because from what I've read their are quite a bit of poor copies out there.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2006
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 32055
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range, good build quality, constant f/2,8
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft wide open, sharpness
|
|
|
It's soft wide open and also a bit soft in the corners. The 16-35 is a little bit better but they are very similar
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2006
|
|
ipprime
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 22, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some vignetting wide open.
|
|
|
Must be some bad copies out there considering the mixed reviews. My copy is excellent!
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2006
|
|
perpera
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 from wide to long, fast AF, L build quality, light, sharp at ALL focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
Closest Focusing Distance 42 mm.
|
|
|
I seem to be lucky getting a very sharp copy of this lens. It's tack sharp in the center at all focal lenght, though soft in corners wide-open which is to be expected. Sharpness is very much better than shown in Fred Miranda's review in the articles section of this site.
Optical performance is better than my old Tamron 17-35 and par to Canon 17-40L. I haven't had opportunity to try Canon 16-35L.
The only cons is that the closest focusing distance is 42 cm and that distortions wideopen at 17mm are significant.
Considering the price i'll rate it a 10.
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2006
|
|
Danpbphoto
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8695
|
|
Review Date: Nov 24, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast! Nice wide angle. Bought used on FM.
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting serious with FF camera. Prone to much flare!
|
|
|
Purchased for my 20D for WA. I found this a fine,fast lens. On 20D it was very nice but when I got my 5D I found the vignetting terrible at lower focal lenghts and flare bad in bright sun. It is a well built lens though.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2005
|
|
slickrick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My lens is very sharp at both ends.
|
|
Cons:
|
none, if you get a good one.
|
|
I find mine very sharp. I bought it in e-bay and it came with everything including the new soft case. The lens was one of the newer ones before they came out with the 16-35mm. I bought it 5 months ago. It's sharp at both ends check out the samples;
http://www.pbase.com/rick_20d/image/48265601
http://www.pbase.com/rick_20d/image/51780723
The lens looks and feels practically new and I love it. This is my second (L) Lens. I also have the 24-70mm f/2.8L--Very Fast...
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005
|
|
Newk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1356
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price of this lens used is quite reasonable. Much cheaper than the 16-35 and twice as fast as the 17-40.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft; barrel distortion is pretty bad at 17mm.
|
|
|
I bought mine used to replace a 20-35 USM. Sharpness is about the same, not bad but not great. I use it mostly for weddings, and it's good enough for that. I paid about $700, which is not much more than a used 17-40, and the extra stop in speed is well worth the slight softness for me.
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2005
|
|
felgonza
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: Chile
Posts: 19
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
constant f2.8, L glass
|
|
Cons:
|
a little soft at wide appertures
|
|
|
The only reason I bought this lens is that I got a great price for it (430 dolars, used really good condition, no hood, no hardcase, just the lens).
It's my first L lens, and I really really like it.
I use it on a Digital Rebel - 300D instead of the kit lens, and I gat a much faster lens, and sharper (stopped down a couple of times).
Anyway, I've read a lot about the soft-focusing issue on the lens, and in my case it is little true, but I can live with it... I mean this isn't an incredibly sharp lens, but for me (non pro) its fine.
For the price paid, its great.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2005
|
|
doug572
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 255
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, built well
|
|
Cons:
|
A little pricey, even used, hood is all but useless.
|
|
|
Using this lens on a 10D, I really have no complaints. I was going to sell this lens and purchase an ultra-wide prime, but I keep re-thinking that decision. This lens is great for outdoor car shows where you don't have a lot of room between the vehicles.
Canon ultra-wides, especially the zooms, have a bad rep for sharpness. Either I got a better than average copy, or it is an unearned rep. Maybe people are expecting too much out of a super wide angle lens.
|
|
|
May 8, 2005
|
|
adam jarus
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, Built Solid, Fast Focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Not Sharp, Minuimum foucsing distance
|
|
|
I first bought this lens because I was able to pick it up cheap, unforunately this copy was extremely soft no matter what. Just trade for a 17-40 f/4 plus some cash. I don't regret it one bit. I wish it would have been as sharp as the Nikon 17-35 which i miss dearly.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2005
|
|
trijicon
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1145
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp (atleast my copy is). Very very usable wide open. Contrast, "L-quality" color and saturation, great range and size. Perfect for 1.6 crop DSLR's
|
|
Cons:
|
Minimun focus distance.
|
|
|
This lense has exceeded my expectations. I bought this lense used from these forums but then quickly read the following reviews and quickly became very sad due to the bad reviews. The majority of these reviews rate this lense as sub par, but I think this lense is amazing. It is perfect for my application which is sports and wedding photography. Both these applications need the f2.8 for both available light and greater DOF. This lense does both marvelously.
Wide open this lense captures subjects very sharp and gives great bokeh. Those who may have rated this lense as poor probably used it on film bodies and for landscapes. But my uses are different; close subjects, DSLRs, and thin DOF
This is a great option for the photographer looking for a wide f2.8 but not looking to spend $1500. Fits nicely between the 17-40L and 16-35L. I definitely would recommend this lense
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2004
|
|
fotografz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 217
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1.10
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible distortion. Softer than the 16-35/2.8L
|
|
|
Canon wides suffer from barrel distortion (even the 35/1.4L), and this one is the king of distortion. I bench tested this lens against the 16-35/2.8L and frankly there was no comparison.
Canon should study Nikon to learn how to better correct their WA zooms.
|
|
|
May 4, 2004
|
|
Finn Magne
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good and very useful zoom range. Possible to use this lens on 17mm together with a pola filter.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharpness and contrast (especially at 17mm and f2,8) bad in the corners.
|
|
|
If you use this lens on 17mm and f2,8 you only get sharp results in the centre. Especially for a L-lens, the sharpness and contrast in the corners are bad. A little less soft at f8, but not good enough for my use since I still use film in my camera. Because about 90% of my pictures are beeing shot within this zoom range, I have just replaced this lens for the cheaper and much sharper EF 17-40/4L. Because of the high price I don't recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
153724
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$777.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.26
|
9.00
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
