 |
|
|
copeg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 170
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
An excellent and very sharp lens. Fantastic sharpness and contrast. Build quality is fantastic - very solid.
|
|
Cons:
|
A tad soft at 17mm near the edges.
|
|
|
A great lens. One of my favorite lenses for landscapes and portraits. My lens has been through a lot, and has survived it all. Very tough build. Its image quality is outstanding. In my comparisons with the 18-55 (Ok, is that really a comparison?), this lens won hands down - the difference was pretty remarkable.
|
|
 Sep 20, 2007
|
|
Kari Post
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 657
|
|
Review Date: Sep 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
price, weight, size, overall image quality especially when used stopped down for landscapes, non-rounded diaphragm
|
|
Cons:
|
some distortion and vignetting, lack of sharpness in corners
|
|
|
I use this lens on my 1.3x crop factor 1D Mark II N and I'm very happy with the results. I use this lens primarily for landscapes, so usually in the f/11-f/18 range and throughout all its focal lengths. Before I switched to Canon at the beginning of 2007, I had been strictly a Nikon photographer and was using a D200 and 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor for landscapes and wide angle nature photography.
I've heard all over that the image quality of Canon's wide angle lens lineup is inferior to what Nikon has to offer, but I don't think the generalization is entirely fair. Nikon's 17-35 is regarded as the best wide angle zoom ever made, but in practical application as a landscape lens, I haven't found any situation where it drastically outperformed the Canon 17-40.
The 17-40 suffers from obvious barrel distortion when used at 17mm, but the distortion lessens greatly when zoomed out only a millimeter or two more. This effect is noticeable when shooting straight horizons, so it order to have a normal unbowed horizon, I usually zoom to about 20mm to be safe when shooting beach scenes. There is some vignetting at the wider settings, but nothing I have not noticed with any other wide angle zoom. I haven't had many problems with CA, although some minor CA not visible unless you interpolate upward or zoom past 100% can appear in very high contrast areas. When used wide open, the corners of an image are not as sharp as the center, which is typical for this type of lens and easily fixed by stopping down. In fact, most of the problems associated with this lens virtually disappear when used in the mid-zoom range at intermediate apertures.
I hit this lens hard when I slipped while crossing a creek and it still is sharp, fast, and accurate, so I can vouch for its durability.
My boyfriend's copy of this lens has one soft corner that is still softer than the others when stopped down. I'm not sure if he has a bad copy or somehow damaged his lens at one point.
In comparison to the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor, I like this lens better. The 17-40 Canon does not have rounded diaphragm blades, so when stopped down to f/18-22 you can create sunbursts and starbursts. The 17-35 Nikkor has rounded blades so sunbursts cannot be accomplished with it. This lens also has 5mm more zoom on the long end and costs less than half what the Nikon does. Of course the Nikkor opens up to f/2.8, but for landscape photography this isn't necessary and the lenses are used stopped down anyway.
I really like this lens and think its a great deal at around $600, especially for anyone who needs a wide-angle zoom with AF capability, but doesn't focus strictly on wide angle photography. For serious architectural photographers, it may be worth it to spend a thousand dollars or more on a good wide-angle lens, but for most people who do weddings, journalism, nature, or even some landscapes (depending on your camera and specific subject matter) the 17-40 is more than an adequate performer.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2007
|
|
Iosif Adamache
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
Hi guys.
I'm a new photographer, in exploring the new camera EOS -5D, and I need a help to clean inside, mirror, sensor and all glases. I tried to use dust cleaner spray (Century Duster), I did not touched any parts of mirror or sensor, but I realize when I look through viewfinder a lots, hundreds of litlle particle of black dust. I there any chance, to solve this problem without send it back to store ? It is brand new, I got it just 2 weeks ago, and I can not take any more pictures at this moment. It is anyone to help me ?
Help...., Help ...
Iosif
|
|
|
Sep 9, 2007
|
|
Joshua June
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tight Crisp images and great color rendition. Price. Weather seal, sold balance, speed, IQ, quiet. Does a good job breaking down problems with chromatic and barrel aberration.
|
|
Cons:
|
well... I really miss being able to stop down to 1.8... but I knew it buying an f4, but still (whine whine whine)
|
|
|
Great lens, I'm addicted to Ebay! Anyway my copy is sweet to the edges at f4, and at f20+ it does blue out on me or over darken the edges like cheaper lenses to... Or is that a camera trait? Not sure, anyway the lens still requires me to be a good photographer to get it to work properly indoors, no IS, but, the glass is top notch, well worth the money and the skillz you will develop using this lens.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
toma7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, light, weather sealed, contrast/sharpness/colors are okay, fast AF, bizarre hood
|
|
Cons:
|
soft corners, f/4, no IS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2007
|
|
James pf Chow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great contrast & colours, weather-shield and well built. AF is fast, smooth and quite. Great value for money. Excellent UWA. Love it.
|
|
Cons:
|
None for what it is designed for. It should NOT be compared with the sharpness of Canon prime L-lens.
|
|
|
This is my 2nd L lens and obviously was anxious to find out how this Canon UWA would perform as compared to other L lens esp the only L lens that I own i.e. 200mm f/2.8L.
My initial concern soon disappeared after a few landscape shots I took at a nearby golf course. I was a bit concerned earlier on it's sharpness after reading some reviews that QC of 17-40mm might be an issue esp after seeing some testshots with 100% crops. Then soon realized that the 17-40mm is designed for wide-angle shots and it should not be compared to equivalent focal length prime lens. Wide angle photography can be quite tricky, great results when it is done properly. Do not get me wrong, 17-40mm IQ is very sharp and consistent! I am impressed with it as it's IQ is close if not as good as the same of 200mm f/2.8L in terms of color and contrast.
This lens is well bulit, weather-shield and definitely an L quality. Nice weight and not too heavy to lug around for travelling and trekking. Hood is slightly big but no issue for me as it could fit into my NOVA-1. AF of the lens is smooth, fast and quiet with the convenient and useful feature of full time manual focus.
The best of all is that 17-40mm f/4 USM is value for money at about half of 16-35mm f/2.8L price but with same if not better IQ. Great lens. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2007
|
|
Breitling65
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4992
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $639.99
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide and fast for wide shots, quick AF, excelent weathersieled build. Good fro travel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not up to wide primes level at all, even my 15mm fisheye is way better lens. Softer at 35mm end, was nto happy with corners sharpness.
|
|
|
I good this lens almost free with 5D double rebate in 2006, after 7 month replaced with primes. Averall good lens for travel, light and well build. Weather sealed!!!.
However since I was looking for better results and faster apertures, better colors and sharpness I got 15mm fisheye, 24L & 35L instead. Each of this primes are amazingly superb and superior to 17-40L, which is still good entry level L zoom.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2007
|
|
Vincent Armato
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 15, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, Contrast and Naturally the WIDE focal length.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little pricey for an F4 lens....but quality costs!
|
|
|
After getting so much good input from others on my lens purchases I felt it was time to contribute to the groups. :-)
I already own a 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8 L and the 28-135 IS. I have been so impressed with the 70-200mm L as well as the 50mm prime, but the 28-135 always left the pics a little shy in color and contrast. I really liked the IS on the 28-135 and wanted to upgrade to a higher quality lens.
The 24-70 f/2.8 was what I wanted, but I figured I would wait longer and see if Canon was going to release an IS version of the lens like they did for the 70-200mm f/2.8 series.
Given everyone else's comments, the 17-40 seemed like a good general purpose lens for 1.6 sensors, so I made the plunge figuring I would reap the benefit an ultrawide with a larger sensor body upgrade.
Boy was I impressed! This lens is as good a quality as my 70-200mm L in terms of color and contrast. The zoom is only so much but the wide angle is great! I can finally get a whole room shot indoors where the 28-135 was failing me. This is going to become my lens for indoor shots and I'll use the 70-200mm for all events. The 17 focal length is definitely an advantage in landscape shots as well.
The weight of the lens is light and the size feels 'just right'. Not too light, not too heavy. The zoom and focus rings are top notch in terms of build quality. No loose rings here!
The 10-22mm EF-S looks like a good lens as well, but considering it doesn't come with a case or a lens hood, it is much more expensive and only useful on the 1.6 crop sensors. Stick with the 17-40mm L if you are a 20D or 30D owner!
- Vince
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2007
|
|
jirok12944
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
perfect lens in all aspects, usable at f/4, priced very well, excellent first professional wide-angle lens
|
|
Cons:
|
none for the price
|
|
|
This is my update after two years use. I was lucky and did not need to calibrate my copy, it was perfect out of the box. Sharpness, contrast, resolution, colors are exceptional. I primary use it for people photography, to be honest I only do photography with people, and in time I understood that my favorite FL is up to 40mm, that's why I used this lens more than others, and that's why I invested in 35mm f/1.4L.... 17-40mm is perfect lens for what it does and especially for the price (1/3 of 16-35mm mk2). If you are looking for your first not-expensive wide-angle lens, that's the one. I think everybody needs to start from it, to grow up and realize that f/4 is the limitation. It is not artistic lens, not a lens to make artistic shallow DOF photos... that's the drawback compensated by the price. Until 16-35mm mkII was introduced I did not think about replacing it, and bought 24-70mm f/2.8 in addition. But unfortunately I do not feel comfortable with 24-70mm, plus it's much stronger on 70mm than 24mm (resolution wise). And I'm thinking about upgrading it to 16-35mm mkII. Here's to sum up: perfect lens in all aspects, usable at f/4, priced very well, excellent first professional wide-angle lens, solid 10.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2007
|
|
mathie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Popular for valid reasons, great IQ, solid build, fast, good price
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
A very popular lens and for many reasons. It's on my XTi all the time now, quite versatile, excellent quality, fast and I think a combo of 17-40 & 70-200 would be sufficient for me. Great build quality, great IQ, can't think of any complaint for now. It's popular so you should be able to get a used one for a good price at a decent quality like I did.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2007
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 631
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $525.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Out of the box wow factor, build quality, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
The HOOD!
|
|
|
This is a follow-on to my previous review. I've now owned a number of L's and a number of 'consumer grade' and third party lenses. I've taken thousands of shots. My L's have included: 24-70, 24-105, 17-40, 70-200 (all verions but the 2.8 non-IS), 100-400.
With the sole exception of perhaps, perhaps! the 70-200/4IS, there's not been a lens that simply WOWED me like this one has. When I glance through a days' shots in ACDSee, you can immediately see which were taken with this lens. It's that good.
Lightweight, fast focus, 'hella good' (as my daughter would say) image quality - this lens has it all. While I have sold my 100-400 (huge mistake) and now own the 70-200/2.8IS after owning both the f4 versions, trading my 24-105 for a 24-70, I've never once considered selling this lens. I might, for some reason I've yet to fathom, get the 16-35/2.8, but this lens will be right next to that one in the bag. You ain't never getting me to part with my 17-40!!
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2007
|
|
Jim Schemel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4543
|
|
Review Date: Jun 29, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Would like to add to my previous comments about this lens.I took it to a social event and used it to take snap shots of people and it did a great job.Default settings in camera were 1/60 and f4 and all the pics were extremely sharp with no distortion.Many wonder how this shot does with people.Let me just say it does a great job!!
-Jim
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2007
|
|
Jim Schemel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4543
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast very good, Colors rendered very good esp vibrant in skies
|
|
Cons:
|
None i can think of at this time
|
|
|
It was hard at first for me to get a good read on this lens.If shooting in raw one must always remember that all pictures taken in raw require sharpening and other adjustments.I think some of the 'soft' comments or 'not sharp enough' comments that i have read hear and on other review sites, might come from some shooting in raw and expecting the pics to be perfect right out of the camera.With a few minor adjustments in DPP the pictures that i took were excellent!! Looking forward to taking this lens with me to NYC and take some bridge and building pics i'm sure that i will be thrilled with the results.Highly Recommended
-Jim
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2007
|
|
aero145
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 333
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $735.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
superb image quality - little chromatic abberation - very good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
I had to test SIX copies of this lens until I was satisfied!
|
|
|
This is a very nice wide angle lens with superb image quality, lots of sharpness, little CA and very good build quality.
As to expected with wide angle zoomlenses, it's more difficult to find a good copy than with telephoto zoomlenses (e.g. I found my 100-400L copy straight away), so I had to try 6 copies of the 17-40L to find the right copy. This is however *'Canon's horrible quality control'* to blame, as it shouldn't be that difficult to find the right wide angle lens copy.
Nevertheless, my example is good and it's a recommended lens for this focal length range.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007
|
|
Matt Kerby
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 497
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast, Color, Sharp, Fast, overall quality, build
Reletively Small
|
|
Cons:
|
No complaints, this lens is a work of art
|
|
|
The contrast is beautiful, my copy is very sharp edge to edge. I prefer this over my 24-70 at times, lighter and thus easier to lug around. The build is very strong, IQ is spot on. Compared to my other Ls, I have no idea why this one is 1/2 the price, but I'm not complaining:)
The nature shots I've taken lately look 3D right out of the camera with no PP...Anyways, I have no complaints just praise for this lens
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2007
|
|
hedredm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
nice build quality, silent USM focusing, light
|
|
Cons:
|
sharpness
|
|
|
I really wanted to like this lens. I bought this to upgrade my Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. It felt great on my camera, focusing was fast and silent, and I really wanted a L lens... I came home and did some tests, expecting this L lens to blow the Tamron out of the water. The L beat the Tamron in edge sharpness by a small amount. Otherwise, center sharpness was pretty much identical. So I paid $500 extra over the Tamron for build quality and silent focusing? I'm not too happy about that... I don't really care that it's built like a tank if the pictures it takes is almost the same as something 1/5th the cost.
I'll try another copy of this lens, but if the results are similar, I'm returning it for good.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952699
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
