 |
|
|
Simon Swales
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price. Build quality. Lightweight. Good autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft in the corners. Lens hood very shallow.
|
|
I use mine with a Canon 5D mk II and it doesn’t disappoint. For the money I have no complaints.
It is sharp but slightly soft in the corners on FF but I can live with it. I use it for wide-angle landscapes where I can stop it down to f/11 and put it on a tripod. If I want slightly better quality I would need to spend over double the money – and I don’t feel inclined to do so.
The auto-focus is silent, quick and accurate. Both the manual focus ring and the zoom ring are smooth.
It does vignette in the corners at the widest angles but this can be corrected in Canon’s DPP software.
The 77mm filter thread is a plus for me as it is the same as that on the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS lens, which means I only need one wide-angle filter ring for my LEE filter system.
Click through to see a panorama of Edinburgh from Edinburgh Castle taken with this lens (handheld):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/5083976419
Click through to see a night time shot of The Forth Bridge in Scotland taken with this lens (mounted on a tripod):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/7065072695
If you are (A) upgrading to Canon FF (B) shoot landscapes, (C) don’t need f/2.8, (D) require a robust, lightweight wide-angle zoom then this lens should tick a lot of boxes. Well worth the money.
|
|
 Nov 18, 2012
|
|
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 15, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, build quality, bokeh, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide open
|
|
Great lens for the price. Only a bit soft wide open. The elder series on my site are made with this lens.
www.totaalfotografie.nl
|
|
|
May 15, 2012
|
|
nswelton
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 235
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
affordable, great build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
copy variation, not super sharp
|
|
|
i've used three copies of this lens and have never quite been satisfied with it. i never quite feel that my images have been in focus! i can live with its soft corners because honestly on FF when you're shooting at 17mm, people get distorted and i try to frame them away from the corners anyway... (landscape shooters will obviously have a totally different perspective). but even in the center points, i'm always kind of "meh" about this lens. i guess if you wind up with a good copy it's relatively affordable for what you get.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012
|
|
girod199
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Great Build, Compact, Light, Low Price
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4 aperture
|
|
This lens is very sharp, or at least my copy is. Even wide open it is sharp. Other reviews say this lens isn't sharp but mine is very sharp so their might be some quality control issues. The build quality is typical of Canon L lenses. The zoom and focus rings are super smooth. The auto-focus is very fast, very accurate, and silent. On a 5D Mark II it feels small. It is also fairly light. The hood does not seem useful because it is so small. The f/4 aperture is slow, but for what I shoot I usually don't shoot wide open. If you are planning on using this lens as a general purpose zoom on a 1.6x cropped camera, I would suggest the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is just as sharp or more sharp and has a 2.8 aperture. That was my favorite lens when I had the 40D. The f/4 aperture is too slow and 40mm is not long enough on a cropped sensor. You might consider it for a cropped camera if you will be in extreme conditions because it is built like a tank and weather sealed with a filter or if you plan on upgrading to a full frame soon. I think this lens shows its full potential on a full frame. It has a nice price tag and will get the job done. I would recommend this lens to anyone with a full frame camera, especially those that do landscape photography. Even as a pixel peeper, I am happy with my results with the 17-40mm. Here are some of my first shots.
Main Street USA Station by M Girod, on Flickr
Main Street USA Station by M Girod, on Flickr
California Screamin' by M Girod, on Flickr
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012
|
|
fishyfinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, very well made, good fun to use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price..
I am just tight..
|
|
Hello.
Not long had this lens, so still learning!
However, what I can say is that it is very sharp, and it is very true what others here have said; bit soft in the corners on a full frame.
Still, use it on a small sensor camera and you will have a great wide lens.
Great fun to use, love looking for mad angles..
If you want sharpness in the corners, simple, spend more money.
So far I have used it for every type of shot, happy with all the shots I have taken. Use with care, when pointed at peoples faces, and you will get great images.
Love it very much, buy one I think you will like it!
Have a look below, set called 17-40mm, some of the shots taken in Shetland with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishyfinger/
Thanks for your time,
Tim.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2012
|
|
dimsonation
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2010
Location: Israel
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, value, color/contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
soft corners on FF body
|
|
|
I've had this lens for almost 2 years now. first i got it as an upgrade for my tamron 17-50 on 50D, when i was making lens lineup adjustments for my move to FF. needless to say it performed flawlessly on a crop body. both the build quality and the IQ were deserving it's L mark
After moving to 5D Mark II i realized what everyone been talking about. while the center sharpness is great, the corners are falling behind unless you close it down to around f/8.
I compared it to 2 copies of 16-35 II, the corners were just slightly softer on my copy but the center sharpness was identical, and when closed down beyond f/11, the differences are almost non existent
In the past year I've been using it as my main UWA for landscapes, mostly in it's widest (and optically the weakest) setting. When closed down to around f/11-f/16 it provides a very good corner to corner sharpness with very little softness in the extreme edges. the contrast and color rendition are great
It's a great option for any FF user on a budget
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2012
|
|
ic2foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Size. weight, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy not sharp at the edges of FF body
|
|
|
I want to simplify my kit for some upcoming travel and thought the 17-40mm L was a logical choice. Nice size, nice build quality, reasonable price and most importantly it covers the 3 focal lengths I use the most - 17/24/35. Unfortunately my copy is not sharp at the edges - at any focal length or f/stop - and this is critically important to me as I sell prints (larger and larger these days) of my work for a living.
On my 5D bodies my copy is very sharp in the middle at the above focal lengths, and the sometimes noticeable distortion can be corrected in DXO. However, at 17mm my Tokina (17mm AT-X AF Pro f/3.5) is so much better in every respect that it is somewhat embarrassing by comparison. At 24mm the results are comparable to my humble but very solid performing Canon 24mm f/2.8 (other than the edges). At 35mm the performance is once again acceptable (other than at the edges) even when compared to my Zeiss ZE.
I'm giving my copy an 8 overall because of the good qualities listed above and the hope that other copies perform better. If not - then this lens won't work for those want or need sharp corners in their images.
As an aside, I also tested my Tamron SP 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 for the first time in conjunction with the 17-40mm. While the Tamron is not as critically sharp in the center as the Canon, it is a sharp lens with much more even performance across the entire frame. I've carried the Tamron in my kit for a couple of years and have not used it once. I just wanted to have an AF zoom lens on hand in case I needed one. While it won't replace my prime lenses, I now have a FF walk around setup that I won't hesitate to use - knowing that I'll be able to make large prints of satisfactory quality. BTW - given my copies - at 24mm and 35mm I would choose the 24-135 Tamron over the 17-40 Canon without a second thought because of the more consistent performance across the frame. FYI
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012
|
|
jerbear00
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 16, 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 594
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $590.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharper than I expected. Small. Good for landscape. Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4
|
|
|
Great buy for the price. Fun on both my 7D and 5d.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012
|
|
IIDMax
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build like a tank. Great lens for travel. You should try hard to broke it! Lowest weight for L lenses. Cool for APS-C.
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion on full frame. My copy isn't sharp at corners (not a problem on crop)
|
|
|
I own this lens for 3 years. It is simply great on crop. Dust and Rain is not a problem. Light weight make it possible for camera to be on your shoulders all the time in bike tours!
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2012
|
|
BostonGreg
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 19, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1494
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $797.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Construction, Image Quality, Sharp, Price Point, Weight
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
The Canon 17-40 f/4L was my first L series lens years ago and still has an active spot in my camera bag. The image quality is great ~ in fact it, it beats the hell out of the "improved" 16-35II. A solid performer and the perfect choice for anyone looking to upgrade into L series glass. Very versatile and perfect as a "walk around" lens. I choose to keep this lens over the equally awesome Tokina 16-28 because I'm able to use my Kaseman polars and I also enjoy using my neutral density filters on some wide angel applications. The 16-28 (also the Canon 14L) do not accept filters.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2012
|
|
agnesleung
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2010
Location: China
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Built, weight and balance, price, range, color.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not really sharp wide-open.
|
|
I brought lens with my first canon DSLR 400D several years ago (instead of the kit lens) and this is a really good walk around, all-rounded lens with a crop body.
Many people compare this lens with 16-35L f2.8, I think unless you shoot a lot of indoor subjects with low light or architecture, this is the lens for you. f4 is pretty enough for day light and landscape capture.
I use mostly the wider end of this lens after I brought my 5D mark II and my 35L f1.4. In terms of sharpness and bokeh quality, of course 35L is the winner, yet from aperture f5.6 onwards, the quality of this lens is comparable to the 35L.
my photos taken by this lens for your reference:
http://agnesleung.com/tag/canon-17-40mm-f4l/
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011
|
|
asanduloiu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Location: Romania
Posts: 377
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sturdy, resistent to a hard wear, sharp, excellent value for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. What I would have to say it is because it is not an 2,8...
|
|
I already have it since more than two years and I used it in mountains, caves and a lot of different outdoor places. Didn't noticed any dust inside, or something to bather me. I've been very enthusiast when I purchased it and I'm still a fan of this lens, so I come again with a review. Almost all my landscape pictures on my site
http://sanduloiu.ro/en/home
are taken with the 17-40 which is always in my bag, even if I'm more a telephoto person. Even the O-ring on the attaching rail is a very good thing and I have to say that I didn't noticed on my other L lenses, like 70-200 f4 and 300 f4... Not the same bokeh like 2,8, but that's lghter, cheaper, so depends what you need.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2011
|
|
FindingNature
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2011
Location: France
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, range, weather sealing, price, 77mm diameter
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS, a bit soft and the edges
|
|
Along with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L, this lens is always in our backpacks when we are in the field, here is why:
- Lightweight, you basically don't feel it in your backpack.
- Weather sealed when used with a filter.
- Very fast autofocus.
- No purple fringing like I used to have with my Canon EF-S 10-22mm.
- Distortion is moderate.
- Has 77mm filter diameter, with is the case for a lot of Canon lenses.
Its biggest competitor is the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 II (or I) but we don't need f/2.8 with this kind of travel around lens. If we want a nice bokeh at a short focal, we will generally use my 35mm f/1.4.
If you want to see real situation samples, check :
http://www.finding-nature.com
And join us on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Finding-Nature/206803999379616
Emmanuel.
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2011
|
|
sbay
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2011
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive, lightweight, sharp in the center
|
|
Cons:
|
poor edge/corner sharpness
|
|
I was very excited about this lens because it fills a very useful range for travel photography. However, I've gone through two copies of this lens trying to find one that had good sharpness out the edges. While stopping down a lot helps, I remain unsatisfied. You can see crops on a full frame at http://bayimages.net/blog/reviews/canon-17-40mm-f4-l-lens-review/
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011
|
|
arthurb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It's an L. Build quality. Super sharp optics.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's only f4
|
|
|
This is my first L lens. I was dubious about buying the 17-40mm L as there seems to be variable reviews of this lens. I had sold my old 300d with the 18-55mm kit lens and needed something with a similar range. After using the new 17-40mm with my 550d body for two weeks, I can say that the images taken so far are outstandingly sharp. Makes my other non-L lenses seem a bit dull! Perhaps I was lucky and bought a good copy.
Obviously the max aperture of F4 is a bit limiting but I have other faster lenses of different focal lengths if I am working in poor light.
|
|
|
May 7, 2011
|
|
dmcharg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 784
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent wide angle lens on a 1.6 body. Light weight and overall excellent.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 and no IS so its not ideal for indoor/lowlight
|
|
|
Overall this is an excellent lens i think. I've used it on various 1.6x bodies and its a nice wide angle lens. Coupled with the 70-200 F4L its a nice travel kit, covering a nice range. In the end i ended up selling it because i found that 17-40 wasn't really ideal as a general purpose lens, i found 40 too short and 17 to wide except for landscapes etc.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952933
|
Nov 18, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$672.06
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.52
|
8.87
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
