 |
|
|
achromatic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $708.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice wide angle. Fairly compact and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight softness in corners
|
|
|
Very nice lens. I like the wide view - would be slightly happier if the sharpness was more consistent, but it's really rather good. A nice addition to the collection.
|
|
 Oct 1, 2006
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 32055
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Rather sharp, AF, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
f/4
|
|
|
It's a descent wide angle zoom for a rather good price. Similar image quality as the 16-35 lens.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2006
|
|
Radeon-888
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, build quality, AF speed, price
|
|
Cons:
|
hood is useless.
|
|
|
I bought a 70-200 F4 L and was amazed so bought this lens and I love it. Very sharp and contrasty. AF is accurate on my 30D/ I bought a Sigma 17-70mm before this lens and the 17-40 is superior by far. I had to apply quite a bit of USM to Sigma pics while its usually not required with the Canon lens. I do not miss the range between 40-70mm.
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2006
|
|
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Sep 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, Super Sharp! Better then the 17-35 f2.8 any day of the week. And the picture, wow the pictures it produces is amazing!
|
|
Cons:
|
The hood. Good grief is this a big hood. Does it even do anything?
|
|
|
Complete Junk! If junk is a word for "The best lens under $1000 ever made!" that is what I would call this lens, Junk. It is simply put one of the best lenses I have ever owned.
I had a 17-35 f2.8 L lens and simply put, I got rid of it for this awesome lens. I can't believe that this is able to work so well with out distorting everything like other wide angle lenses.
Only thing I don't like about this lens is the GIANT hood it comes with. The hood is as tall as a 20D with grip! It is so big I am not even sure how it is even supposed to work. Other then that you can't get a better lens from canon.
I would even Dare say it gives the 16-35 f2.8 a run for the money and that you should only buy that expensive lens if you really need f2.8, if you are using this lens with a flash or landscapes, do your wallet a favour and buy this gem. You wont regret it. I didnt.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2006
|
|
polizonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $679.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent colors and good detail when used w/my Rebel XTI
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
It is impossible for me to compare this lens to my only other zoom lens, a used Nikkor 24-105D that I used with a Nikon N90 film camera. I didn't particularly like that lens for some reason; it was sharp w/some distortion but I sold it for exactly what it cost me. Mounted on the Rebel XTi the Canon 17-40L is my landscape/general photography lens and any distortion at the wide end does not concern me; for a reasonable price (compared to the 16-35 L), it is just what I needed to complement my Canon 100mm USM macro.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2006
|
|
TMJ1974
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 69
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality, sharp/crisp photos with exceptional colors, good at keeping out dust
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I upgraded from the 17-85 IS lens and have been happy ever since.
This lens produces very sharp photos with very vivid colors. It feels very well built and does well keeping dust/particles out of the lens interior.
Zoom is super smooth, much smoother than my previous "consumer" zooms.
After using it for almost a year, I can say there have been very few pictures I haven't liked from this lens.
I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2006
|
|
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 7, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tank build quality, fast focusing, very wide on a 5d, relatively light, great image quality almost to corners, close focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Front of lens not sealed and dust gets in after a while, corner sharpness quite bad, but most wide angle lenses are like this...
|
|
|
When I first bought this lens, I was tossing up between the 12-24 sigma, the 10-22 canon ef-s and the 17-40 f4L.
The differences in price werent huge, so I kept looking at the 17-40, for its good build quality and resale value (having owned the lens I won't be selling it any time soon).
The 10-22 was looking good, but I didn't really want to buy a cropped sensor lens, as the 5D was in my thoughts as a future purchase.
Sigma's 12-24 looked promising, but bad reports of image softness and not being able to use front filters ruled it out.
I am glad I went with the 17-40, and on the 350d, images were sharp from corner to corner. The distortion caused by this lens was quite severe, but it took on a whole new meaning when I got a 5D full frame. A word of caution: Be very very careful with the 17-40 (or any wide angle non Tilt and shift) on a full frame camera! Avoid putting people at the corners of the frame, as their faces will be stretched and distorted badly.
The image quality at the corners of this lens is less than perfect but that is partly the nature of the beast. If you want corner to corner sharpness with no distortion, get a longer focal length.
Wide angle photography can be quite tricky, but with great results when done properly. I am glad I purchased this lens, as it opened up many more photographic opportunities to me.
I have since become more interested in longer focal lengths, say from 50mm, 200mm and up but I always have this lens with me for when it's needed.
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2006
|
|
riversen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $740.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a great and affordable "L" lens. Is there such a thing as an affordable "L" lens? In any case, when I can spend less than a $1000 for image quality this good, I think it is great. My shots are clear, focus is fast and quiet, relatively light for "L" quality, and at wide open it does perform a lot better than the 17-85mm EF-S IS USM I just sold. Yes, it is not a prime, but I am okay with that. It does not have great reach, but I am also okay with that.
|
|
Cons:
|
Could have better reach for the same price... oh that would be the 24-105mm, huh? I don't have any great complaints.
|
|
|
I have taken some great family shots with this thing. I really enjoy the quality for the price. It is solid and produces beautiful images when I seem to get everything put together correctly. I can't blame the lens for the problems with the photographer... :-) I have to admit, it does quite well at 17mm. I had the 17-85mm EF-S IS USM, and it was great; however, it did not does as well as this lens. Yes, I could get a prime and probably have the best shots in the world, but this is darn close for my budget. If you are willing to take the next step, then this is the lens for you. If you have money to blow and/or want the absolute best, then consider something a bit better. In any case, this is an almost perfect lens for the price!
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006
|
|
FlyRN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Sep 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, sharp, incredible color/contrast, internal focus/zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a lot
|
|
|
Recently traded a 17-85 IS towards this after I was totally blown away by a 70-200 4L. Expected and got very similiar results. Sharp, colorful, contrasty images. Built strong enough to use as a weapon and butter smooth focus/zoom. Wish it was a 2.8 but I knew going in that I would need more light indoors. Not bad indoors with a lot of light or a flash, but it's unbelievable outdoors. The color is amazing. Incredible outdoor portrait and landscape lens. Very pleased.
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2006
|
|
webisweb
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 236
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $599.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp at all apertures, superb color redention, well balaced weight/size ratio, fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. Well, it has a little corner softness at 17mm which doesn't affect the IQ at all.
|
|
|
I've finally switched from Nikon to Canon last week. I think this lens is much better than Nikkor 17-55/2.8 DX ED in every aspect: images are much sharper, color reproduction is more accurate (maybe I've got a great copy).
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2006
|
|
Ron Fischer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good weight and size for a "walk around" lens. Good sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, so far
|
|
I have been using this lens for about 2 months now. I purchased it along with the Canon 70-200L f/4 lens. Overall, the sharpness of this lens is far better than the "kit lens" that came with my Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D). I have used the lens for wedding photography and landscape photography, and I have had no performance problems. You can view some of the photographs I have taken with this lens on my web site at:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=125176
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2006
|
|
ShutterLover
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 613
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Jaw-dropping sharpness when compared to everydaylenses. Light for an L-lens. Useful length for a walkabout lens on a cropped sensor. Very good build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Thought it a little 'rough' on the zoom ring when new, but got smoother. Other examples I've tried seemed the same so maybe expectations were too high. Not's not f2.8, but that's nit-picking.
|
|
|
Bought this as my first 'L-lens' together with the 70-200 f4.
It was all my budget could take and I was wondering if I'd often feel the need for f2.8 but so far have not missed it at all as it's so easy to simply up the ISO on Canon DSLRs with little or no noise being introduced.
Compared to most run-of-the-mill lenses (by which I mean anything not strictly pro) the 17-40 is jaw-dropping. Sharp, beautiful images right across the zoom range, even wide open. It's a useful zoom range for a walkabout on a cropped sensor camera like the 30D. I've also put my 17-40 on a 5D and there it function as a brilliant true wide angle with only minimal vignetting you'd only notice if pixel-peeping.
I've used it for travel photography involving street scenes, architectural shots, landscapes and cityscapes and for these it is exceptional. It's also great for group shots, portraits (although f4 and a smaller focal length make it harder to get big background blur), and strolling around events. It focusses close so brilliant for snapping little detail shots too.
It's a cliche to say that it's the photographer not the camera but if you want to render your compositions with as much quality as possible, check out lenses like this.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006
|
|
Niatrap
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $675.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
|
Have had my 17-40 lense a couple years it is a good and solid lense It is used on my 5d-20D
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2006
|
|
PeepingTom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 609
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
For digital shooters shooting group shots and landscape (with 1.6 crop factor) there is no alternative to this zoom lens under $ 1000.
I prefer working with this lens over the 20mm Canon prime lens & Sigma 24 mm 1.4 lens in all well-lit situations- color, sharpness, limited flare, 'pop' factor.
I have not had luck with indoor / flash shots despite thousands of shots and my best efforts. Perhaps I expect to much.
If you can afford the 16-35 f2.8 L (twice the price and one stop faster), I would bite the bullet and take that route.
Fantastic build quality, worthy of L siblings in every way.
Happy shooting.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2006
|
|
JanPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $549.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Half price of 16 mm, Sharp and excellent image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
... nada ...
|
|
|
I was looking for some time for wide angle glass ... I did try number of them including Canon 16-35 mm after all I have decided for 17-40 mm. Why ? Price versus quality is unbeatable. This lens is very, very good.
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2006
|
|
I Simonius
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at the wide end
As good in the centre @35mm as the 35mmf1.4L at similar apertures
Excellent colour
|
|
Cons:
|
Had to go in twice to adjust for sharpness - was MUCH worse on just one side
|
|
|
I compared the 35mmf1.4L at similar apertures it to the 17-40L zoom, processed them both the same (just sharpened 300, radius 0.4). The first thing I did was test the focussing, and that was spot on.
The 17-40 gives average resolution (esp.for landscape shots) at the 35-40 range, also the 17-40 zoom has a reputation for not being very good at 35-40 range i.e. worse in all reviews at that FL than the 16-35 which is sharper @35mm), yet the 35f1.4 does not give noticably improved resolution over the zoom at similar apertures! The colour rendition of both is IMO excellent so they are on a par there too.
In fact the zoom might even have the edge over the 35mm 1.4 on apparent sharpness at the centre
The zoom falls down very badly at the corners at all focal lengths, which is to be expected at the wide end but I had expected better at the long end
Reasonably priced
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952753
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
