 |
|
|
blueish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 48
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely solid construction. Has dealed with rain and the rain of death (Roommate spilled soda on my camera...) and nothing bad has happened. Very sharp and great for landscapes. Price is amazing for the quality of the lense it is. About half the price of a 24-70/f2.8L and although they are used for different occasions, the 17-40/f4L is greatly used.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 is isn't that exciting, but it works well for what it is.
|
|
|
Overall, great lense. My first L lense before I jumped on the 24-70/F2.8L. I would recommend it for anyone who has a Rebel XT/30D to the people who have the 5D. 17mm is great and you'll miss it if you ever do jump to the 24-70.
|
|
 Jun 5, 2007
|
|
udoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 218
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
- AF is fast & quiet
- Good color and contrast
- Does not show vignetting on 1D Mark II
- Really good price for value
|
|
Cons:
|
- Does show vignetting on full frame especially with Flash on.
|
|
|
I would highly recommend this lens if you are using a 1.3x or a 1.6x camera. However if you are using a full frame, there is vignetting at 17mm, it shows more pronounced when you have your flash on.
Other than that flaw, I see this as an exteremly good lens espcially at this price point. It has all the other nice features that all L series lens has like fast AF, silent motor and good color and contrast.
Highly recommended!
|
|
|
May 31, 2007
|
|
Steve Jamroz
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 223
|
|
Review Date: May 24, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Red Ring, Canon Brand
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality doesn't justify price
|
|
|
I shoot studio stuff with a 5D. I bought this lens thinking it would be great, and unfortunately it is not. It has a blue cast, is dark and doesn't produce sharp images. I find this lens sitting in my bag when I need a critical shot. I pull out my much less expensive Tamron 28-75 DI and get bright pictures so sharp you could cut your hand on them. This lens just doesn't deliver for me. Though my Canon 70-200 does, every time.
|
|
|
May 24, 2007
|
|
Rolando Petit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $630.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, smooth and priced just right...
|
|
Cons:
|
none...
|
|
|
if you are considering this lens rent it first, it will help
|
|
|
May 18, 2007
|
|
PeepingTom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 609
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $650.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Great Contrast, Color and Build, 'must have wide'angle for 'non-full frame' digital bodies, inexpensive for an L lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a fast 2.8 lens
|
|
|
Have owned this lens for almost 2 years. It is my second most used lens with the 20D. Fantastic build, almost perfect in every way. Easy to pack and use ...under all conditions. Works great with auto flash, for events such as weddings, group shots, or similar professional PJ applications.
I have used it extensively for product photography (very large manufactured items on a tripod) with great success.
The only downside is that is not an 'available light' lens with a large aperture (it is a very useful constant F4). On the other hand, the 2.8 L lens cost twice as much!
There is no other lens of this class, in this price range (including Canon Primes). One of Canon's great deals!
|
|
|
May 17, 2007
|
|
rsamant
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build quality, good colour, awesome value!
|
|
Cons:
|
Not too much
|
|
I bought this lens with my 20D a few months back and I love it. I wanted to get a good quality lens (like and "L" quality) but couldn't afford $1500+ for most of the other L lenses. For the price you get a very well built lens that takes excellent pictures. I haven't noticed any issues with vignetting CA or any thing of the sort. My only complaint is that as my only lens at the moment, its a bit too wide but that is not a problem with the quality at all, I just need more lenses  I absolutely recommend this lens to anyone on a budget but would still like to get some good quality glass. As a final note I'll say that in general the ones who give this lens a bad review are usually those who can afford to spend thousands on a lens most likely becuase they make money from photograpnhy. For the vast majority of us out there taking pictures, money is a major issue when purchasing equipment and although this camera may not perform as well as the 16-35 F2.8 L, it is half the price, in other words you could go get another lens:)
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2007
|
|
Generalair
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle, great colour and contrast,good build, works well with my 5D with no vignetting.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nada
|
|
|
This is my fun lens for scenery architecture and tight spaces. I was using it for an all around lens at events but had to get too close to people which freaks them a little. 40mm is just not long enough, I'm finding most of the people shots around 60 to 70mm for the full frame camera. I bought this lens because of the impressive postings of outdoor landscapes and at this it excels getting a lot of colour and a wider vistas. Only at the very edge of the frames will you see some barreling and only noticeable with tall thin objects like trees. For the price this lens is awesome and might be a better walk around lens on a crop frame camera.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2007
|
|
anthonygh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1659
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, sharpness, focus speed
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I use this lens for studio work on a Canon10D; it allows anything from head and shoulders to full length. It works well in my limited space.
The images have a lovely deep quality with beautiful colours and image sharpness. I also use the amazing 85mm f1.8 and this lens almost rival that for sharpness although a direct comparison isn't possible because of the focal range difference.
I have sometimes taken this lens/camera combination out of doors and the results were excellent; landscapes seem to leap out of the monitor; and take a picture of something mundane like a bush and every leaf in the focal plane seems full of detail. At any aperture setting.
Prior to this lens I used the Vivitar Series1 19 - 35mm, which was both highly rated and cost me only £50 s/h. Maybe I have a good copy because I thought long and hard about shelling out for the Canon having seen what the Vivitar can do, and in some respects it didn't seem the wise choice when comparing results...except that with the Vivitar I had to draw on all it's strengths (best aperture, lighting etc) where as the Canon just gets on with it and everything just looks and works that much better. Overall, a purchase I am very happy with!
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007
|
|
monsieuroctago
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide and still good on a crop body, constant aperture, (relatively) compact, really great build quality, 77mm filter thread matches my other lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow, longest length is still pretty short on a crop
|
|
|
I owned this lens for about 5 months and sold it so I could buy a fast 50mm prime. f/4 is useless once you step inside, so an external flash becomes just about essential.
This range is really great on a crop. It works out to a 27-64mm f4 zoom, which covers pretty wide landscape shots to portraits.
The price point is really good and I recommend it as a walkaround lens, but your shutter is going to start to drag once you step inside. Get a 50 1.8 to supplement it, and you have a really good general purpose range.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2007
|
|
Alex Achucarro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, wide - even on 1.6x crop. Sharp even at F4, L glass, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Build is a little plasticy. Had to send mine back as the Autofocus started to squeek.
|
|
|
Not a fan of Canon's quality control process as I've had to send it off for repair. Luckily I checked about international warranty when I got this lens in Brisbane, Australia hence great price I paid.
Aside from that, I love this lens. It's the best. Couldn't afford 5D so I bought the 400D with mind to add a FF body years later! But I wanted to start collecting L glass and wanted a wide first buy. Couldn't justify 16-35L and didn't see much point in F2.8 as I'd be using tripod a lot and be out doors a lot with lots of light.
Started collecting Cokin filters and I just love this lens more and more. Slapped this baby onto me mates 5D and it's like falling in love again. So wide and sooo sharp, such good value. I have the 70-200 L IS F2.8 loaned to me at the moment and I love my lens more! The 70-200 will probably me my next lens, if not the 24-70 but this is my walk around lens and if I had to choose one. It'd be this one. I'd give it 10 out of 10 if it was built a tiny bit better. Still feels great though.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2007
|
|
Fridriksson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2007
Location: Iceland
Posts: 147
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $656.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing/USM, sharpness, weight&size, good price for an L lens...
|
|
Cons:
|
none really...
|
|
|
This lens is a fantastic lens!
I bought it for the wide angle, even though I have a crop body (Rebel XT/350D). It's really fast in focusing and the sharpness on all focal lengths is great.
For me the weight and size isn't an issue, because I like lenses that make me feel like I truly have something in front of the camera. I am really happy with this lens and it's always on my camera.
The price is great for an L lens and I would definitely recommend it.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2007
|
|
Jordan Diaz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 108
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Fast. Silent. "Weather Sealed".
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2007
|
|
casch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpnes and Price
|
|
Cons:
|
For an L lens a little too much plastic
|
|
|
One of the best buys around. Fantastic sharp lens. While the build is a little off from other L series lenses its auto focus speed and quality of image are not. I only wish it were a 2.8 aperature.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2007
|
|
John Alberto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Contrast, Weight, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing so far
|
|
I did not know what to expect after recieving this lens based on all the reviews I have read here and other forums. I did not know what to believe anymore, so I decided to find out for myself. Took some sample shots of the street with my Rebel XT, and looked OK, but when I mounted it to my 20D on our recent trip the pictures blew me away. I read a lot of sharpness issues with this lens, but @ f4-8 it was up there with my 70-200 f4 and would easily compete with my 50 f1.4. I guess I got lucky and with an ultra sharp copy of this lens. Overall, very happy with this purchase. So far even the prints are comming out great. Here is a sample shot:
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2007
|
|
tmr_wa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1023
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
When I first purchased my 10D several years ago, I realized that I would eventually want a lens that could provide me with something in the 28mm range on a full frame camera. I thought about the 16-35/2.8, but it didn’t make sense for me to pay over twice the amount of the 17-40 for what essentially amounts to the ability to use a lens at f/2.8. Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate fast lenses. Indeed, I own several fast primes, and they see a lot of use, especially in low-light, non-flash applications and for selective focus. But, I recognized that in most situations, I’d be using the wide angle lens on a tripod and stopping down, and for snapshots I’m not opposed to using bounced flash. Thus, the 17-40/4 L was my choice.
The 17-40 L is very well built, fitting of its L-designation, and is capable of producing very sharp images. The fast, quiet USM is certainly appreciated. I did purchase the hood designated for the 24/1.4L to use with the 17-40 on my 10D. I think it’s certainly a much better choice than the hood that is included with the lens, at least for the 1.6x DSLR crowd.
If the number of reviews on FM is indicative of anything, the 17-40 is probably one of the most popular lenses in the Canon line. At 17mm, the lens covers a reasonably wide 27mm range on a 1.6x DSLR. I rarely used lenses wider than 28mm when shooting film, so I don’t miss too much on the wide end with this lens. I do, however, sometimes take photographs for my realtor relatives and for this purpose, I must admit that the 17-40 doesn’t cut it for wide indoor shots. Alas, I must reach for a wider lens (in my case with the 10D, the Sigma 10-20). But, I have used the 17-40 exclusively for a project focused on outdoor architecture and it performed very well. Generally speaking, the 17-40 sees much more use than the wider zoom for most of my applications.
The 17-40L has been my primary travel lens for several years. I do not find the f/4 too limiting with the great high ISO performance of Canon DSLRs. After owning the lens for a while, I'm a bit surprised to note that it has performed quite well for me as an indoor event lens, especially with bounced flash from a 420EX. That said, the performance of this lens really shines outdoors, in particular for wide open spaces where I want to emphasize the sky or the scope of the land:
http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/63691506
I also find uses for the lens indoors without flash, usually with a tripod:
http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/62946654
I use aperture priority quite a lot, so I like the constant f/4 across the zoom range. In experience, the 17-40 is a bit sharper on the wide end. Stopping down certainly improves sharpness (not a surprise), but I’m certainly not afraid to use it at f/4.
Overall, I am very pleased with my 17-40L.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2007
|
|
Nimnar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
I traded a 10-22mm for my copy of this lens because I'm switching to a full-frame camera. I love the 17-40mm. It's really sharp, much better than the 24-105mm at identical focal lengths and f-stops. Great contrast and usual L color. I guess I got a good copy!
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952935
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
