 |
|
|
RikWriter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2424
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, sharp, great colors, little distortion, good corners even on full frame 5D, great price.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit slow at f4.
|
|
|
When I bought the 5D, I picked up a 17-40 to replace my 10-22 I'd used on my 20D. I fully intended to save up for a 16-35 at some point but in the interim I've discovered that the 17-40 is an excellent performer on the full frame camera. It's a bit slow at f4, but 17mm is so wide on a full frame camera, that I mostly use the lens for wide landscapes and don't need a faster lens. For the money, this is a can't-miss lens.
|
|
 May 31, 2006
|
|
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, internal zooming, FTM, very good optical quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None, if you can live with f4.0
|
|
This is a follow-up to my previous review. The more I use the lens, the more I am so impressed with it. See the pictures of Bruges on my website:
http://www.garywhite-photography.com/section40929_23276.html
It is very good across the whole range, relatively good a wide settings and only slightly soft wide open. One of the best L zooms. Buy with confidence
|
|
|
May 23, 2006
|
|
PokGuy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $615.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
- USM
- L QUALITY
- SHARP, SHAPR, SHAPR, SHAPR
|
|
Cons:
|
-NO IS
-NONE WHAT SO EVER
|
|
|
VERY VERY SHARP LENSE COLORS ARE AMAZING, ONE GLASS I WILL ALWAYS HAVE WITH ME, L BUILT QUALITY, OVER ALL I AM VERY PLEASED WITH THIS LENSE. A MUST HAVE.
|
|
|
May 21, 2006
|
|
BlenderPilot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: Mexico
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build, nice colors, not too heavy.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have done extensive testing against the 18-55 kit lens and trust me the difference is hardly if at all noticable terms of resolution, and looking at the edges the 18-55 is even sharper.
|
|
|
I have done extensive testing against the 18-55 kit lens and trust me the difference is hardly if at all noticable terms of resolution, and looking at the edges the 18-55 is even sharper.
|
|
|
May 20, 2006
|
|
Waleed Marhoum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2006
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
super wide sharp lens
|
|
Cons:
|
nothig
|
|
|
I have 70-200L IS and the 100 Macro
I couldn't love a lens like the 17-40L
I call it my lovly doughter
|
|
|
May 18, 2006
|
|
ontime
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1994
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, color and contrast, autofocus speed, FT-M
|
|
Cons:
|
softness at 17mm, hugangous lens hood, at least for use on crop camera
|
|
|
I really needed a replacement for the 18-55, and I suppose I found one. But at 650+ dollars I expected more. Wide open, focusing near infinity, and @ 17mm, I find this lens to be soft. Other than that it is very sharp, but what use if I can't use the widest angle? Shrug. I'll probably sell it for something else. For now it'll do. Until then, my landscape pictures will be sub-par.
Ok good things: compared to the piece of garbage 18-55, color and contrast are excellent, although during a recent hike I had some overexposure issues. Probably user error, but I'll test it s'more. I'd like to replace it with an L prime or 16-35 L equivalent but they're super expensive.
This lens is kinda large, but don't be a wuss and be like "it's too big wahh wahh for walk around." Hey, it's big but not that big, it's on the heavy side but not really. That probably makes no sense.
Enjoy
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
littleacorn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, from F4 on up, from 17 on up, sharp, sharp, sharp. Solid and abuse tolerant.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow, only an F4, wish they could come out with something like say, 1.8? Ok, I'm a dreamer, but I'd pay 3 times for one.
|
|
|
Best lens I have, I've had it for almost 2 years and it spends 90% or more of the time on my camera, looking at the the other comments I must have gotten a nice one because it's sharp, and when I mean sharp, it's sharp at all stops, even 4, and at all zooms. It beats my 50 1.8 Mark I anyday. As for quality of build, it survived a solid dunking of beer when bottles broke in my pack during a trip, and it keeps on trucking.
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
edelsolar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $640.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast, CA control, build quality, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Overall soft images, defective right corner in my copy.
|
|
|
I purchased the 17-40mm to use for landscape shooting. I had purchased a 24mm 2.8 about two years ago as I found the kit lens way too soft at the corners and not great at the center.
My initial impression was that the images for the 17-40mm were just OK. I liked the color contrast, CA control on the lens, AF response and general feel. Unfortunately, the image quality was not there. I felt the images were a step down from my Canon 10-22mm lens.
I decided to tripod test the lens against the kit lens and the 24mm 2.8. The 17-40 had better CA contrast and resolution at the center and left corner compared to the kit lens. The kit lens, however, had better resolution and contrast at the right corners! The 24mm 2.8 was much better than the 17-40mm at the center and corners by far.
I decided to return this copy and still believe that this is a good lens for landscape shots. However, I would only purchase this lens from a vendor that has a no questions return policy just in case.
I have given this particular lens copy a 4 due to image quality. Can Canon calibrate the defective corner? Maybe..but mine was
returned within the 14 day trial period.
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
pldragon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 2, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, good contrast and colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft, especially in the edges and at wide angles. Kit lense (18-55) has much better sharpness at wide angels.
|
|
Well, the first copy of the lense I received had very poor performance I figured it must have been dropped or something during transportation. The replacement copy I got from the store wasn't any better. So that lense has been returned too.
The problem with the 17-40 is that one does not find many reviews considering the fact that this lense is very very soft at wide angels and especially in the corners. Taking its price into consideration it's unacceptable!
My Canon 350D has been tested at a Canon certified repair facility and no errors were found.
I know of other photographers that have had the same experiences with the lense.
The increased contrast and color on this lense makes people think that its sharper than the kitlense but it isn't.
Take a look at my website with a comparison of the two lenses: http://msomso.homepage.dk
Well the pictures speak for themselves....
In other forums I have been told that lots of people are having troubles with the 17-40 and that they have to try several copies before obtaining a good one.
|
|
|
May 2, 2006
|
|
Agent Buckwald
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Feel/Quality, IQ, colours. Not EF-S.
|
|
Cons:
|
hood on 1.6x
|
|
|
A beautiful lens. Feels great on the on the 30D. Solid. Sharp with great colours. A great introduction to L lenses. Works very well matched with a 50mm prime and a 70-200 L F4 on a 1.6x camera. I will eventually move to FF at some point in the next few years and I will be able to take this lens with me, unlike the 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S, which was a serious consideration.
|
|
|
May 2, 2006
|
|
smartrav
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
40 mm max, good macro
|
|
Cons:
|
price price price!
|
|
|
I tested this lens vs the Tamron 17 to 35mm lens and the image quality is identical. Both lenses were flat from the center to the edges of the frame. I was FF using a Canon 5D. I made resolution targets at every f/# at 17mm and 35mm and the two lens were within one chart. Since price is an issue with me I almost decided to go with the Tamron mainly because it had 2.8 F/# on the 17mm end and f/32 on the 35mm end where the Canon is f/4 to 22 straight across. But the Canon focused faster and the 40 mm high side gave bigger macros. The only non- flat resolution was with the Tamron in the center at 17mm it started out at 0 1 at f/2.8 maxed at 0 4 at f/8 and dropped to 0 2 at f/22. The Canon was 03 from end to end all aperatures. I wasn't going to weld the aperature at f/8.
I rationalized I would buy the Canon 17-40 because the max focal length was 40mm and this would keep me from buying an intermediate lens. rather I will just get a 70 to 200mm to complete my travel backpack. O someday I will get a 50 or something else. I was tempted with the Canon 24 to 105mm w iS but my tests showed the copy I had was too soft. Not worth the price.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2006
|
|
YellowBullet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2432
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, USM focusing, fairly inexpensive for an "L" lens, good color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Softish wide open, very bad corner performance on full frame digital
|
|
|
I am not very impressed with this lens.
I have tried six (6) copies of it, and while some were better and some worse, none lived up to the "L" moniker in terms of image quality.
Color and contrast are good, but sharpness is not that great wide open. Stopping down to at least 5.6 definitely helps.
The worst thing about it is the poor corner performance on full frame digital. I guess it's not designed for digital, since it performs pretty good on film. Light hits the sensor at too narrow of an angle, so the corners look very mushy and muddy. Stopping down helps, but even at f/13 the corners are still not that great.
Good all-around lens for 1.6 crop cameras, or even 1.3 crop bodies.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2006
|
|
tbsteph
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Apr 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build; Good price for an L quality lens; Fits well on a RebelXT; Manual focus; Very sharp with good contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Huge hood on a cropped camera
|
|
|
I find the 17-40L to be a great walk around lens on a cropped camera particularly for landscape photography. I don't see any noticeable softness at any f-stop or focal length in prints up to 8x10. AF silent and quick.
Would the 17-40L be better if it had with a wider zoom range and was a bit faster (2.8) - sure! But, for what it does, its a great lens!
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2006
|
|
deriscal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic colours. Distortion are minor.Build extreamly solid at the same time not heavy.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I have expirience with many Canon non-L lenses like 17-85, 28-135, 20-35 also Tokina 28-80 f2.8 also some sigmas and you can not even compare to this 17-40 F4. I use it on 350D (Rebel xt) and it gives you great results. Its the matter of fantastic balance in the picture of great colours and sharpnes.If you expect that the sharpnes will make you drop on your knees you are wrong.17-40 L its sharp but its not -I would say-over sharp that you can expirience using some sigma lenses.
Sell all your non L lenses (except the prime ones of course!!!) and buy 17-40L . ITS REFRESHING!!!! :-)
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2006
|
|
Sea Dragon Rex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $535.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, fast silent focus, VG IQ wide open and excellent stopped down, great price for an L zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little to easy to switch the AF/MF button.
|
|
|
I sold my 17-85 to fund this lens. The build quality is exceptional. The only complaint I have is that I've noticed that the AF/MF button seems to be very easy to switch (there have been instance where I pulled my camera out to take a shot and the lens has been switched to MF).
The focus is fast and silent and the images are sharp. There is some pincushion distortion at the wide end but it doesn't seem to be as bad as the 17-85. Also, the colors seem to be a little warmer with the 17-40L than the 17-85.
I will be doing some comparison shots with a 24L in the near future and may end up upgrading to the 16-35L because I want the extra speed but I am very happy with the 17-40L.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2006
|
|
dHitman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light and handles well. Fast and silent focusing thanks to USM. Smooth natural colors.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA and not as sharp as other Canon L zoom. My Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm proves sharper and better contrast than the Canon. Unfortunate but true.
|
|
|
I bought this lens after reading rave reviews about it and also wanted a walk around lens. Many claim this lens to be razor sharp and very contrasty but unfortunately my copy proves other wise. I believe the 16-35mm L gives better resolution anytime without a doubt but it cost twice as much. I owned a 20-35mm f2.8L before and the 17-40mm is nowhere near it.
I've sold my 17-40mm and replaced it with Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f4 and the Tokina really ROCKS! After the 1.6X on my 20D, the focal range of the 17-40mm is neither here nor there. I found it not very usefull unless on a FF body. Overall if you need to have only Canon lens and you crave for the L 'quality' keep your finger crossed and go for it. Good luck in getting a good copy.
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
953066
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
