about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
508 996717 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.61
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
8.9
ef17-40_4l_1_

Specifications:
A new and affordable L-series ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that's ideal for both film and digital SLRs. Superior optics are assured by the use of three aspherical lens elements, in addition to a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass element. Optical coatings are optimized for use with digital cameras. This lens focuses as close as 11 inches (0.28m), and offers both Canon's full-time manual focus and a powerful ring-type USM for fast and silent AF. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers the choice of screw-in 77mm filters or a holder in the rear of the lens for up to three gel filters. Finally, it offers weather-resistant construction similar to other high-end L-series lenses.


 


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next
          
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add greg_c to your Buddy List  
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 671
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add FatBoyAl to your Buddy List  
Pinetree
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 20, 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 wasnīt perfect, but ok all the same. The biggest drawback of this lens was itīs 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 itīs the zoom range you really do both use and want! For wide landscapes itīs too long and for versatile people photography itīs too short, and to that not very flattering when taking close-ups of people. Donīt get it as a compromise: thatīs the road to certain dissatisfaction. If you still want it, get it. Itīs an affordable “good quality for the money” -lens.

Nov 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Pinetree to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add William Austin to your Buddy List  
neridah
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 16, 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add neridah to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ranmandx to your Buddy List  
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 Ģ150 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add silmaril to your Buddy List  
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 

 
Pros: Sharp,
Cons:

Lite weight, dependable, always in my bag, sharp great for landscapes

Oct 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ALCAN to your Buddy List  
achromatic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Sep 30, 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.

Sep 30, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add achromatic to your Buddy List  
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 33650
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Lars Johnsson to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Radeon-888 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Christopher-J to your Buddy List  
polizonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add polizonte to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add TMJ1974 to your Buddy List  
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Nov 6, 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Maliketh to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add riversen to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
508 996717 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.61
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
8.9
ef17-40_4l_1_


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next