 |
|
|
Indo Kasera
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $870.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Image Quality
|
|
|
I purchased EF 17-40 f/4L one year ago, as an all-purpose lens on my 350D. I have been trying to get good images from this lens. But the images are not sharp and suffer from poor contrast. There is also problem of under-exposure at wider end, even after updating the camera firmware. EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens) is much superior to this ‘L’ lens in terms of image quality and exposure.
Recently, I visited a Canon service centre and they found problem of back focusing in my copy. It is to my great surprise that the ‘L’ lenses also suffer from poor quality control. I refused for re-calibration as I am not sure if this is risk free.
I am giving an overall rating of 3 only for its excellent build quality. And for image quality the rating is 0. I would have considered better rating if it were a non-‘L’ lens.
It is a good paperweight but very expensive.
|
|
 Dec 8, 2006
|
|
BogongBreeze
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 442
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, build, sharpness, colour - love everything about this lens. And it's weather sealed with a filter.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I got this lens for the wider end plus the convenience of a zoom through to "standard" lens size.
It has wonderful dynamic range as well as being very sharp. The colour is rich and true. Of course at the 17mm end there is distortion but it's even and easily corrected in PS if one wants to (much of the time it adds to the pic). On a crop body there is absolutely no vignetting (don't know about full frame). Have not found flare to be a problem at all either. You can use manual focus without having to turn off AF (if you need it, the AF is great.)
(I can only assume that those who made severely negative posts got a bad copy as my copy is excellent.)
Thoroughly recommend this lens for landscape, cityscapes, buildings as well as an all purpose lens for street shots, people, family gatherings etc.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2006
|
|
KevinA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
It's in my bag
|
|
Cons:
|
I wish it wasn't
|
|
|
I've met quite a few photographers that have this lens, everyone of them thinks it's a real stinker. I can only assume the people that like it have a crop factor going on with their camera 'cos on a full frame it's a joke. Sharpish at 40mm, but you don't buy it for 40mm you buy it for the wide end. This is very poor, but is up to par with other Canon wide offerings.
Oh and the distortion at 17mm, try getting a level horizon in the top third of the frame, I could cope with a gentle arc, but a wobbly line that's all over the place. Don't buy this lens, it's not heavy enough to use as a door stop and rubbish as a camera lens on FF. Get anything else.
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2006
|
|
evisione
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
relatively inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
not sharp enough, nor is the color rich
|
|
|
I went through 2 copies of this lens and thehy were both missing that little something called sharpness. I sent both copies back to where I bought them from (2 different camera places) and got a 16-35. I haven't looked back since.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
arthurgoh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, compact size, sturdy build, price
|
|
Cons:
|
unwieldy lens hood
|
|
|
One of the most economical lenses of the EF-L series, the 17-40 is particularly well suited for landscape photography. It's size/build/cost ratio gives it, in my view, an unbeatable value if you're looking for a quality replacement for the kit lens (18-55).
Although it may not be fast enough for some in low-light handheld situations, a flashgun solves the issue relatively well. A bit short if intended for owners of full frame cameras as a walkaround lens, users of 1.6 crop cameras may find the range more usable for that purpose. Also, 1.6 users don't have much to worry about in the way of vignetting.
Those who are undecided about this lens over the 16-35, luminous landscape has a fair comparative review of the two.
In any case, an excellent piece of glass all round. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2006
|
|
timnosenzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1370
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, weather-sealing, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
....none?
|
|
|
This lens rules. It's relatively cheap, built well and takes excellent pictures! When I upgraded to my 5D, I sold my 16-35 f/2.8L and bought the 17-40 f/4L because I didn't need the extra stop anymore. While I would say that the 16-35 its built a little better, the 17-40 really is a champ. Its a great lens on the 5D.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006
|
|
Thomas Ware
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Colour, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price
|
|
|
Although my style prefers teles, everyone needs a decent wide-angle, a role that this lens fills very well.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2006
|
|
SAUMBI
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
outstanding image quality, light weight, build quality, OH SO VERATILE ON A 1.6 20D, PRICE, SMOOTH OPERATION, COMPLETE PACKAGE!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
If someone can find one let me know?
|
|
|
This is the second L lense I bought. I've had it for about a year and a half now, and love every thing about it. It was superb on my 10D and remains that way on my 20D. My first L lens was a 100-300 5.6 antique that I stole off ebay for $275.00, slow not built as well as this lens and push pull zoom which I hate, but one look at the pics and WOW, I still have that lens and use it all the time in good light, and it kicks!
This lense though is an up to date top notch zoom in canons L SERIES, Canon has held distortion flair and fringing to the point it is non existant in all but extreme cases, in my opinion it is more usable than its more expensive counterpart the 16-35 2.8 because of its much more usefull 40mm big end. And as far as image quality I can see no difference, since I have no reason to crop to any great extent in this focal range, if I did maybe there would be a difference. I dont know how this lense could be topped in this focal range. I have the 24-70 2.8 also and I can say I think it is as fine a lense as any prime I ever used and credit the 17-40 for me purchasing the 24-70. It showed me what real life difference there is in canons L SERIES lense's. they are true professional quality in every way. I have had several aftermarket manufactures lense's in a wide aray of focal lenghts and they dont compare,and I dont think they deserve the questionable reviews I've seen wrote here on them, disstortion flare and sharpness can only be equaled with expessive single focal lenth lense's, and only if they are from quality manufacturers.
This lens and the antique mentioned earlyer, also led to the purchase of an L lens that has no place for a review on here and that was the excelent discontinude 80-200 2.8L, known as the majic drainpipe, which with the exception of focus speed, is equal to or beter than the now 70-200 2.8L. A true diamond in the rough!!
I mention these other lenses which I currently own to simply show that I am not comparing the 17-40 to just any other lense some can be happy with, but to compare it to the best canon has or had to offer and it is as good as it gets!! I dont think I'll ever part with this lens it is as good as it gets!!
If you have a use for a lens in this focal range BUY IT, YOU CAN THANK ME LATER, if you don't think you have a use for this lens, BUY IT, YOU WILL THANK ME LATER!!
And did I say IT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS. Because you should know, IT IS, AS GOOD AS IT GETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
greg_c
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, excellent contrast, solidly built
|
|
Cons:
|
hood is a tad akward
|
|
|
I upgraded from my stock 18-55mm kit lens to the 17-40mm lens. In short - no comparison between the two. This lens is awesome. When I compared the two lenses in a few shots in the field, the difference in color, constrast, and sharpness was all too apparent. The lens has a solid build and gives excellent results.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2006
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 631
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $525.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, contrast, sharpness, IQ overall, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet!
|
|
|
I bought mine used from a fellow FM'er. This is simply awesome. Really, with over 300 reviews, what am I going to say that someone else hasn't already? At this point, I think it's more of a matter of relating your actual experience and thoughts.
This was a Canon refurb and I must say, I do love refurbs. I usually buy any expensive item I need through refurb - that way someone else has worked out the bugs. That holds true for this lens. It's just incredible. My first L was the 24-105, then the new 70-200/4IS and now this. The 70-200 makes you go WOW. So does this lens!
Build quality is legendary, but I'll second everything positive anyone's said about it in the past. Man, is it built solid. Everything, from the zoom and focus rings to the switches feels quality. One nice thing about this lens is the price - it won't kill you to get incredible quality.
I have/had (depending on when you read this!) a Tokina 19-35 and I often felt that replacing it was simply not necessary. It had great IQ and low distortion. While I still feel that way, it doesn't compare to the 17-40 - and perhaps it shouldn't. After all, it is one fourth the price. What I'm pointing out is that the IQ of the 17-40 is world's away better than the Tokina and the Tokina had good IQ!!
Is there anything more to say? Wonderful lens. If you're on the fence, jump off. Buy it and don't look back. If you don't like it for some bizarre reason, the rest of the world will pay you most of what you paid new - basically forever. It's a no lose purchase. How often can you say that?
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006
|
|
Pinetree
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 122
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $630.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, good build and quality for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
The biggest drawback is the very narrow reach (see more beneath).
|
|
|
I owned this lens for about 6 months. The picture quality wasn´t perfect, but ok all the same. The biggest drawback of this lens was it´s narrow zoom range. On a 30D the crop being 28-64 “mm” was not for me. For my shooting style (wide landscapes and portraits/people photography) this range is outright lousy. So I sold the lens a month ago and got instead a EF-S 10-22 (for landscapes + nature) and a EF 24-105 F4L IS (for nature, portraits, walk around photography etc.). These both lenses are just stunners in both usability and picture quality. They both are much better than the EF 17-40. If you intend to use it on a 1.6x be sure it´s the zoom range you really do both use and want! For wide landscapes it´s too long and for versatile people photography it´s too short, and to that not very flattering when taking close-ups of people. Don´t get it as a compromise: that´s the road to certain dissatisfaction. If you still want it, get it. It´s an affordable “good quality for the money” -lens.
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2006
|
|
William Austin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice and sharp, great colours and contrasts
|
|
Cons:
|
a hoot the size on my hand
|
|
|
I owned this Lens before and used it on a 10D and then on a 20D, I was always happy with the image quality but wanted something with a bit more zoom, so I sold it and got the 17-85 IS, I kept that lens until I sold my 20D and bought the 5D, I'd never been that happy with the 17-85, sure it served the extra zoom but the image quality was nowhere near that of the 17-40.
So now I have a 5D with the 24-105 F4L and I wanted something a bit wider so I bought the 17-40 F4l again and I'm so glad I did,
It's just as good on a full frame as it was on a crop.
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2006
|
|
neridah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 970
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build relatively light L glass!Sharp & versatile Consistent performer.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nil
|
|
|
After sampling both this lens and the 16-35mm 2.8.
I decided in favour of the 17-40 due to its excellent clarity optics and price.
I couldnt justify the $1000 difference for the one f stop.
Great value for money "L" Series lens...Go grab it!
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2006
|
|
ranmandx
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 545
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Contrast, Colour, Weight
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Now since having the 70-200 2.8IS lens i have to say i love this lens even more. it really gives the 70-200 quite a run for it's money. I have yet to duplicate the exacting sharpness this lens provides at infinity focus or even at close focus distances. Wide open it is fantastic. Favourite lens in my bag. I have a hard time keeping any other lens on my camera for long when this one is around i suppose i should leave it at home to give the other lenses a chance to shine.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2006
|
|
silmaril
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and great colour. Really quite incredible.
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet
|
|
|
In UK, the benefit of this lens compared to the price is somewhat debatable, but you can pick it up for £150 cheaper in the US.
Absolutely no buyer remorse whatsoever. I have a 24-105L on my 5D and thought I buy a 17-40L to be used with my old 20D. This combo certainly give the 24-105/5D a run for its money.
Rich true colour with incredible sharpness. If this came with IS, this would be a perfect travel lens with a crop camera for those dark churches or museums. It might be WA, but none IS lens is just not very effective in church or museum.
The only downside is a damn huge hood though.
Cheapest L lens but definitely top notch. If you only want to get one L lens and a crop body with limited budget, I think you can't go wrong with this.
|
|
|
Oct 5, 2006
|
|
ALCAN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $659.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
Lite weight, dependable, always in my bag, sharp great for landscapes
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952776
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
