 |
|
|
powerear
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, colors, fast focus, sharp at 4, very sharp at 8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is too big at a crop camera. At a 1.6 or 1.3 crop camera the EW-83D II seems to be able to use. Itīs the hood for the EF24L. The range could be better. 17-60 would be very nice. Fully dust proof only with a filter.
|
|
|
I use this lens with a 30D and the 70-200/4. At f4 itīs sharp in the middle but could be a bit sharper in the corners. It is still on high level but keep in mind itīs not a 2.8 where you get better result one step slower at 4, you have to use the f4 at many cases. f8 very sharp overall. It plays on a very high level but I would only give it a 10 when it would be fully usable at f4 like a 70-200/4 which is overall very sharp at f4. Very nice color reproduction.
Build quality is very good but a filter should be used to make the front element dust resistant. I use a B&W UV MRC a very good and good to clean filter. In my opinion the best standard zoom you could buy for a crop camera. Comparable to the 24-105L on a full frame but cheaper and with cashback at the moment in europe.
I am not sure if this lens fits the demands of FF users.
Keep also in mind that a EF-S lens like a 17-55 is not usable on EF cameras like the 1D Versions or the 5D. I plan to upgrade to a used 1Ds when I can affort it and this lens would fit where a ef-s lens would not.
Hood is crab, none or two hoods for crop or ff should be delivered with the lens. Itīs not very userfriendly to be forced to sell the EW-83E to get a EW-83D !!!???
|
|
 Apr 14, 2006
|
|
fozzybear1969
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable L lens, sharp, contrasty, great colours, USM, weather sealed, pro-build. Great for shooting in confined spaces.
|
|
Cons:
|
Large hood, distortion below 24mm, noticable distortion at 17mm. 17-50 would be better range. Hunts a bit in low light.
|
|
|
A nice piece of L glass. The colours are great and the images are razor sharp and contrasty. It focuses fast but it hunted a bit in low light. As everyone stated before the hood is annoying so just don't use it. There is noticable distortion at 17mm but that's what wide angles do. It would be an awesome lens if it was a 17-50 f2.8 L. Can't wait to see what the new 17-55 f2.8 EF-S IS lens will be like. I may get that lens and sell the 17-40.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2006
|
|
gpfmartin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 172
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $599.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Best zoom for a APS-C dSLR! Sharp, fast focusing, excellent build
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at 17mm, corner sharpness at 17mm, the dang hood that always is getting in the way!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2006
|
|
njandl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 216
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb build, USM, weathersealing (not that it matters as much on my 20D...), quite sharp, very good standard range on a 1.6x crop.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is pointless with 1.6 crop bodies, not quite as amazingly sharp as I hoped.
|
|
|
Has become my walk-around lens on my 20D. Truly professional build quality, very fast AF, excellent range (though 17-55 would be nicer...). Generally very sharp results, including at f/4, but not quite as good as my 70-200 f/4L. Still, there isn't much better of a wide-angle for 1.6x Canon bodies unless you need f/2.8 (which would be nice, but the 16-35 has such variable copies I hear) or you're willing to try out a Sigma or Tamron, both of which are potentially good contenders. Bottom line: get a 17-40L used; it will be more than worth your money.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2006
|
|
andyjaggy82
Offline
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 721
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp on a 1.6X camera. Amazing colors. Fast focusing. Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Corner sharpness. Soft wide open.
|
|
|
I first got this lens when I only owned a film camera and was always dissapointed with the results. The corners and edges were amazingly bad. However on the 350d I have been very happy with the results. I did some comparrisons with my 50mm and while the 50mm definately had an edge in sharpness this lens blew it away in the color and contrast department. I had to boost the saturation 20% on the images shot with my 50mm to get the same color coming straight out of this lens.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2006
|
|
cp73
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $639.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp pictures, focus right on, great pictures right out of the camera with no pp, excellent colors and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
its big compared to the 18-55 kit lens and when its on it might not fit in your camera case depending on what you have.
|
|
|
I spent months trying to decide which lens to buy to replace the kit-lens. I was primarily debating between the 17-85 IS and the 17-40L. Depending on what day of the week it was I was flopping back and forth. The thing that made me finally decide on the 17-40 was this forum and its ratings. I thought if I buy the 17-85 and I am not satisified with its sharpness I will regret this purchase and be wondering what I was missing. So I decided to go with the 17-40L.
I must agree with most of the owners on this forum its very sharp, quick focus, built like a tank, and great colors and contrast. This is what I was really expecting when I bought my 350D with the Kit lens. I also have the 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 and this lens beats them both. Buy this lens and you wont regret it. The L snobs are right.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2006
|
|
GabrieleNisi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Colori, nitidezza, AF (colors, sharpness, AF)
|
|
Cons:
|
Nessuno (None)
|
|
|
E' stata la mia seconda lente Canon. All'inizio non ho avuto un gran feeling con questo vetro, ma col tempo ho imparato ad apprezzarlo, specie per i suoi colori e per la sua nitidezza da macro (a distanze ravvicinate).
E' veramente un gran bel vetro che restituisce immagini con dei colori pastello incantevoli. Molto itido, ben contrastato, privo di aberrazioni cromatiche e di vignettatura.
Lo uso principalmente sulla mia 20D, ma aspetto di poterlo usare, tra un annetto al massimo, anche su FF.
E' un obiettivo veramente valido che consiglio a tutti incondizionatamente !!!!
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2006
|
|
Multipasser
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap for what you get. Very sharp on f5.6+ till f16.
|
|
Cons:
|
I get some CA on the left side (more that on the right)
|
|
|
I was lucky to get a sigma 12-24mm to test all weekend. At first it looked very sharp and good for the price I had to pay (450euro).
I went back to compare it to a 17-40mm L using a tripod.
The results were amazing. The 17-40mm was so so so much sharper. And less CA than the sigma.
I was considering a 16-35mm L. But for only 1 stop I can now buy a 200mm prime instead. Much more fun.
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2006
|
|
allanyue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 29, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens, sharp as razor, price, vibrant colors, price of course!
|
|
Cons:
|
f4, pics soft at f4,
|
|
|
Overall great lens. Very sharp with great colors. Lightweight and built like a tank, worthy of the "L" designation. Fast and responsive AF.
Images are soft with the aparture wide open but gets very sharp a few steps down. Not that great indoors when you cant use a flash but its F4, it comes with the territory.
Love this lens.
Cheers
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2006
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 380
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great image quality, well built, good value
|
|
Cons:
|
many buyers of this lens have a 1.6 crop factor camera, which compels the purchase of another hood, such as the one for the 24L or the 24-105L, to avoid using the insanely wide (but necessary) hood designed for film/full-frame sensors
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2006
|
|
OMFG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 22, 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, Picture quality, great for city-walkabouts.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens isn't small and the hood is definately oversized. Focus isn't as fast as other USM lenses I've used.
|
|
|
I'm using this lens with a 20D. The image quality is great, colors are vibrant and even on a crop frame, I find the 17mm wide enough for most purposes although I occasionally find that 40mm isn't long enough.
If you've just got yourself a 20/30/350D, make sure that this is the first lens that you treat yourself to. You won't be disapointed. This is the lens to go with these cameras, no doubt about it. Additionally, you're buying in to the EF L-Series legacy which famously holds its resale value.
A 17-40mm f4 paired with a 70-200mm f4 would be the perfect combination for a seriously competitive low-cost package. Maybe throw in a 50mm 1.8f for some low-light prime work.
One happy customer.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2006
|
|
EKN_2005
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $720.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great color and sharpness, comes with a hood and a carrying case
|
|
Cons:
|
A little on the heavy side, but it's a trade-off for sturdy construction
|
|
|
This was my first L lens. I'd read reviews before my purchase of this lens, but I never would've believed just how great this lens really is. The color and sharpness are amazing. I'd definitely recommend this lens to anyone who were thinking about upgrading from the kit lens.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2006
|
|
tqli07981
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 78
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $741.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open. Wide enough on 20D
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Agree with all the positive reviews. Use it on my 20D. Wish it could be a bit faster, but it is me try not to over spend here, so not the fault of this baby. Just post to contribute to the positive reviews. Highly recommanded.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2006
|
|
SWMorales
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 729
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
EVERYTHING! color is amazing, give up your kit lenses! no matter which one it is even the 17-85 is. this thing kicks its a mud hole in its ass and walks it dry.
|
|
Cons:
|
um considering its so damn cheap, not a thing!
|
|
|
like i said, for the price theres nothing that beats it. ive shot many a great photo on this lens and even at f4 if you shoot up your iso it works fine. People complain too much, consider what you are getting an L lens and a nice wide zoom for 600 bucks. quit your complaining. anyone who is considering this, go out and buy it. you wont regret it for a second.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2006
|
|
tellingthm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 334
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
color, sharpness, build, usm
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood, f/4, has infected me with L fever
|
|
unless i need the speed of a prime, this is my main lens on my 20d. colors are superb, it's sharp wide open, the af fast and accurate EVEN in low-light. as one of the most affordable L's, i find this lens an amazing value. the build quality is so amazing (this was my first L) that it makes my 20d feel sort of cheap 
i don't mind the "lack" of range as much as most because most of what i shoot is wide-angle anyways.
of course it's f/4, but considering that the price nearly double to get to f/2.8, it's a more-than-fair tradeoff.
the only thing that i don't like about this lens is the included hood. since canon knows most people currently buying this lens use it on a 1.6 crop, where the hood is basically useless, it'd be nice to have the option to get an alternative hood that is not so large (and thus difficult to put in a bag).
bottom line is that since i purchased this lens a couple of months ago, i am yet to be disappointed.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2006
|
|
Tario
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 256
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, contrast, weight, build quality, USM.
|
|
Cons:
|
f/2.8 at that price would be very nice of Canon ;)
|
|
|
Well now I know why sooooo many people have this lens. It is simply great. Good range-I thought it may be a little short ended but it is not..range is great for PJ style and fun for portariture too. Not as versatiale as my 24-105 but this gem really works well..and it's capability to catch light, color and contrast is unparallel.
Sold the 17-85 EF-S and this baby replaces is it easy.
A great buy.
Cheap price was due to good customer service and satisfaction, moreover, due to good customer appreciation.
Thanks Dove.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952662
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
