 |
|
|
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
|
|
Vilhelm Ernir
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2007
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $810.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent build, good colors, sharpness & range
|
|
Cons:
|
f4
|
|
|
For this being my first L lens I find it amazing. Recently bought it and im loving it. Love the range of this lens, its perfect for people photography. If you´re thinking about getting one, I wouldn't hesitate, its worth it.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2007
|
|
Mike Fiction
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 86
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent quality lens - very sharp - great contrast - great resistance to flare. Weather sealed.
|
|
Cons:
|
none for me
|
|
|
I got a great deal on a used one. The lens is just magnicifent. I have always been wary of the quality of zoom lenses until I bought this one. The L series lenses are definitly a class above. My copy is very sharp.
The range is perfect for landscape photography though I've been using it for ebay - larger item product photography as well.
17mm on a 35mm or full frame is absolutly awesome. Of course it has distortion, but not nearly as bad as I would have thought.
Excellent lens, I will keep as a permanent resident in my bag!
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2007
|
|
JDSA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 240
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Works beautifully on my 1D Mark II N but on the 5D it's something else. It's small, light, built like a tank and just plain works great.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft in the edges, lots of distortion wide open, a fair amount of CA
|
|
|
I bought mine in April of '04. I had just sold my Digital Rebel with its 18-55 lens and I needed "wide" for my new 10D. It did the job and has always been a favorite though not very much used lens.
Then I bought a 5D. The 17-40 is terrific on that body. A 5D and a 17-40, that's what real 35mm photography is about. Whether it's a room full of kids or a championship HS basketball team facing photographers and TV people all crowding in for their shots the 17-40/5D gets the job done.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2007
|
|
Familyandchild
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
wide/well built
|
|
Cons:
|
why 40 not 30 or 70
|
|
|
Really nice performance for this price.
F4 is enough for most cases, and i mainly use it at F8 for landscape.
Of cource you do not hope beatiful boken under low light for this lens: wide angle and large aperture.
Most of the nature/landscape pp in my homepage were taken by this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2007
|
|
Tony Kourlas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Stellar performer 17mm-24mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at 35mm, all the way to center.
|
|
|
Canon quality control leaves much to be desired. Just bought this new. Beatiful colours. Tack sharp at 17mm-24mm. Fuzzy over 30mm... not a happy camper. I'm sending it to canon hoping it is a callibration issue.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2007
|
|
JS Bedard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $679.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great sharpness when well used (between f/5.6 until f/11), robust, sealed against dust if used with a front filter, lens size not too big, distortions and aberrations well controlled, price O.K. for this quality, good overall contrat
|
|
Cons:
|
Too narrow f/4 maximum aperture, which really sucks (but the price is in consequence compared to the 16-35mm f/2.8), badly designed hood
|
|
I bought this lens to be used with the cheapie plastic-built Canon Rebel XT. This lens works better to do landscape photography IMHO. Why? Because the aperture is limited to f/4, it limits a lot the possibilities for better works. And you begin to have acceptable sharpness and definition around f/5.6. So this apterture is not acceptable for standard portrait or to make any kind of blurring effect.
Zooms are cool, but the aperture is generally too narrow. I prefer to carry 2-3 prime lens, and be able to take better picture, despite that you need a little more time to change the lens and compose the picture.
I recommend this lens for a general purpose use, but if you need to do more "landscape" than "portrait" photo. The 24-70mm f/2.8 could be a better option, but you lose the 17-24 gap for "wide-angle", which is not acceptable on a cropped-sensor camera. So if you are more serious, the 16-35 is surely a better option, but you pay the price for it (because of the f/2.8 aperture).
I realized that Canon don't do enough lenses for the new cropped cameras, and that's why I will change for a full-frame model. It seems that their new EF-S lens are all dust-sucker models, very plastic with lower optical quality. Better avoid those doubtful 17-85 or 17-55 new models, which are just (let's hope) some Canon bad mistakes.
Take a look at my photos at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jsbedard1977/
Thanks
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2007
|
|
alfieri
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 175
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
good value; reasonably solid performer; 40mm comes in handy
|
|
Cons:
|
a little soft, particular on the wide end; the 16-35 f/2.8L and 17-55 f/2.8L EF-S IS are much better
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2007
|
|
HamishHamilton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $690.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, toughish.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft...or something? Not "poppy" L quality looking shots. QC on Canon's part.
|
|
|
I am disapointed with this lens and my spelling ability...
I think that the people at Samy's camera in Santa Barbara probably think I am crazy for testing so many...and I still got stuck with a bad copy. I am not nuts because I managed to get great 24-105 and 100-400. Go figure...
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2007
|
|
Daxe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality of materials, full frame, nice colors, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Little poor at 40mm , short focal.
|
|
|
I buy it because i work with digital and analogic canon SLR, so i prefer full frame so i can change from one to another camera. Before i had sigma 18-50 F2.8 , and exsist difference, the canon is more strong colors, very good at corner (except at 40mm very is only "good" ), fast AF, dust proof, sexy look, other side is short focal, only F4 (but i not need 2.8, for portrait i use 85 1.8). The price is very good for this L lens (is a true L lens), but 50$ i must spend only for UV filter... 77mm is so big.
At end i raccomanded it because i think together 17-55 2.8 r the best lens for dslr. Plus it work with FF
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2007
|
|
Gregg Swail
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality,build,sharpness and WOW factor.
|
|
Cons:
|
Limited range for some
|
|
|
This is an excellent lens. I have been using the Sigma 10-20mm and Canon 50 1.8 for the past six months. looking at the first results from this lens on my 30D, the other lenses will probably gather dust.FF also.
The range is perfect for my style of shooting. Others may find it not long enough or wide enough. Move around, it will be worth it!
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2006
|
|
jirok12944
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent performer, color, sharpness, build, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none for the price
|
|
|
Unfortunately Canon does not have perfect QA, and some of us getting bad copies... or maybe body+lens do not much by some reason. I recommend sending body and lens for calibration if you get sharpness less than perfect. It is simply as sharp as 35mm f/1.4L at f5.6-f11.
I‘ve used it on 5D for over 6 months. For the price it is an exceptional performer, some corner softness and distortion at 17-24mm, some vignetting and CA wide open :: nothing to worry about, especially at half price of 16-35mm.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2006
|
|
Toby Werner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 89
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $520.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrast, build, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
"Only" up to 40mm
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about a month now and it has been on my 300D producing amazing results. Image quality, contrast, and bokeh are all perfect. Only thing that "sucks" is that the lens only goes to 40mm but for the price one can't argue. A very fine piece of glass!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2006
|
|
johnshinn3
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 143
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, sharp, good color saturation and weather-sealed.
|
|
Cons:
|
huge lens hood
|
|
|
I've had this lens for about 4 months now and I can say that this "L" lens---though it may be one of the cheapest "L" lens---delivers when it has to. My copy is sharp from 17 to 40 on my EOS-1D or 10D. While I may desire a 2.8L in the near future, for now the 17-40 is my favorite wide angle lens.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2006
|
|
Partha Pal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2006
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Contrast, Fast response, comparitively light weiight,Excellent build up.
|
|
Cons:
|
17-80 f/4 may be a alternative I think.
|
|
|
I have purchased the lens just a month before. Still now I am very impressed by its performance. It is fast responsive, very sharp and can produce contrasty and saturated photograph. It matches perfectly with my Canon 30D , balanced with 30D wonderfully and produce stunning results. I can enhance 20" X 30" print without any deterioration. The minimum focussing distance is quite helpful and u can create even more strong perspective shot using it. The 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L combination will bring most of the thavel and all purpose photography.
I recommended it strongly.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2006
|
|
carycary
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Its wide.
|
|
Cons:
|
Its soft.
|
|
|
I am quite perplexed when I read reviews here that say this lens is sharp. Can I assume these are people with bad eyes or novices that wouldn't know the difference between sharp and soft? I say this because mine isn't anywhere near sharp. I have sent it in once already and I don't really see any difference. The build quality is great but I find it sits in my bag most of the time because I hate soft pictures and I hate having to post process everything that comes off of it.
Has anyone here ever had one of these that they felt was much to soft and sent it in and got it back sharp? Maybe its just mine that is bad. Who knows, all I know is that it is a worthless chuck of glass at this point.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955827
|
Jun 9, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$672.06
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.51
|
8.87
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
