 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3
|
|
|
|
zeldon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Feb 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range; constant f/2.8 aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image performance on certain cameras.
|
|
|
Hi -
Bought this lens and was fairly happy with its performance on my D60 and its 1.6x factor. Then, bought a 1Ds (full frame) and the lens went up for sale the same day.
I found it nearly impossible to make full frame prints from images shot at 17mm, even at f/8.0; the corners were just plain mushy.
I realize that the 1Ds is merciless with ANY lens perfections, but I would prefer the loss of the convenience of a zoom lens over the loss of image quality, so I bought a Canon 20mm prime.
|
|
 Feb 29, 2004
|
|
Jeff Hall
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 319
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Love the wide angle on full frame, great performance (for me.)
|
|
Cons:
|
CA wide open.
|
|
|
I got this lens used a couple years ago before the 16-35 came out. Reportedly the 16-35 and 17-40 are better, and since I'm a lens snob I almost want to replace this, but really I've been happy with the performance and cannot fault it. Some CA is noticeable wide open for big prints, say 12-18, but really it's okay. Doesn't have the same "tack-sharp" feeling as my 70-200, but most lenses don't. I shoot this a lot at f5.6-8.0 and it's far sharper than I need at that range.
Having said that, I've used this lens for 90% of my outdoor shots using Velvia and E100VS/E100GX because I shoot waterfalls and wide scenics that I love with the wide angle. Now with the DR it's almost a normal lens, so it lives on the camera, but of course it's no longer wide enough! Oh well, next body or next lens.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2003
|
|
Richard Smith
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 517
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Quality compared to other WA Zooms
|
|
Cons:
|
Price (See below)
|
|
|
I have had this lens for about a year now. When shooting with my D10 (previously D30) it is pretty much my standard lens. Most happy with the feel of the lens in use and the results are great. This was my first "L" lens so I guess I was easy to impress.
Personally hacked off about the price because I got just before the 16-35 came out and the price dropped. Doh!
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2003
|
|
rlay
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My most used lens on 1.6x Digital SLRs (D30/10D)
Sharp
Enough bokeh for portraits
Light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
physically big lens
full time manual focus needs repair- on my lens
on camera flash cast a shadow on the widest lengths
|
|
|
I love this lens. I use it for all of my snapshots around the house and for travel. What’s not to like? Easy enough for my wife to compose great pictures in full Auto or P modes. Fast enough for me to get really creative. I haven’t had the chance to bring it in for repair because we use it so much (full time manual focus ring is loose).
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2003
|
|
Jack Flesher
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3489
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a superb performer
|
|
|
This lens is slightly softer in the center than the 16-35 that replaced it, but IMHO better in the corners than the 16-35. If you have to have a zoom in this range, and you shoot a 1.3x crop factor or FF camera, I think this lens is probably a better all-around choice than the 16-35, especially for the price. (But neither are up to prime standards in the same ranges -- IMHO.)
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
mike kobal
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 454
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great wa range, very good image quality using optimal apertures, smaller and lighter weight (compared to 16-35L)
|
|
Cons:
|
not great wide open, not great at the long end (35mm)
|
|
|
compared the 17-35L against two new 16-35L on my 1Ds, practically, for my type of shooting there was no difference in sharpness or distortion. color fringing is a tad better corrected on 16-35L, one has to fix it in ps anyway. lots of people are trading up to the 16-35, great bargains out there. test before you buy.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
153715
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
