 |
|
|
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
|
|
wkoffel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $700.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Good wide-angle, even useful on 1.6x crop factor sensors. Nice color saturation. Excellent construction.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is very awkward. Not quite as striking a quality difference as other L-glass in my bag.
|
|
This has been a tried-and-true lens in my bag. For those thinking about upgrading from the Canon 18-55 kit lens, I have a non-technical comparison overview on my site.
http://www.fountainphoto.com/2004/05/10/canon-ef-17-40l-vs-ef-s-18-55/
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2006
|
|
wood1271
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality of both the lens and the pictures are fantastic. The size and weight are perfect for my 350D.
|
|
Cons:
|
The hood is wierd looking.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens to replace the EFS 18-55 kit lens that came on my 350D. I stressed over the price, but was glad I pulled the trigger and bought it. The picture quality is amazing. I conducted my own informal test using the kit lens, this lens and a Canon 50mm 1.8 lens. This lens blew them away. The colors and details were amazing. It was well worth the L price and look forward to my next L pruchase the 70-200 4L. I would have love to have been able to afforded 2.8's, but seeing how as this is a hobby and not my profession I am not disappointed in the least.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2006
|
|
RED JET
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good portrait lens for 1.6x crop. Pretty sharp and responsive. Good build. OK price is selling point.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft edges... Not really 'L' sharp. At 8MP or less, look elsewhere for good enlargements.
|
|
|
Good contrast and sharp if you only use the center or have megapixels to spare. Great wide angle range for film. Unsatisfactory sharpness for landscape photography. Edge sharpness suffers particularly (which means you suffer). Objects in the edges cannot be used for perspective.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2006
|
|
Perdu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1657
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, optical quality, price, weather and dust proofing
|
|
Cons:
|
A hood that makes the lens look a monster
|
|
|
I'm giving this lens a 10 despite it's few faults because it's my favorite lens for the past 18 months.
I originally bought a Sigma 17-35 for my Canon 10D. I found it to be soft and after a week the eletronics failed. Purchased another. That was soft and failed in a month or so of use.
I gave in and bought this and was amazed at the quality, color and contrast. It's great on a x1.6 sensor and the image quality blew the sigmas away.
What's not to like:
It's a bit soft at both ends of the zoom especially wide open which is where I find I use this lens a lot. When Rita skimmed Houston last year I needed to bump the ISO to 800 and 1600. Ditto in most Texas stormy skies. I should'nt compain about this cos I knew it was f4 when I bought it. The lens hood is very large but I almost never use it and don't find I need to.
The only thing that would make me part with this lens is winning the loto and getting the 16-35 f2.8, otherwise it's a lens I'll never sell. I'm very pleased.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2006
|
|
Reijer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality is very good! This lens really feels like I bought something that's worth the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
"Only" f/4. But hey, if I wanted f/2.8, I should have saved a lot more money!
|
|
|
I really like this one. Actually the only place I can't use this lens is indoors at night; all other occasions it's perfect. I guess I will not part with this lens any time soon.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2006
|
|
seanmclennan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid body. Parafocal lens. Full time manual focus. Dust sealed. Silent AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Worst lens hood ever. Useless in low light. Slow AF performance in any lighting conditions.
|
|
|
What can I say....I tried really, really hard to buy this lens. It does everything you've ever wanted a lens to do. I just could not find one that worked on my 20D at all.
The good stuff is what everyone has said. It's got the most features you can cram into a lens. It's built like a tank. It's going to hold it's value forever. The only thing I wasn't impressed with was the low light AF and general AF speed. Of course all my other lenses are constant 2.8s or faster...so I might just be spoiled on that one.
Unfortunately, every single one I tried on my 20D (5 in total) back focused at anything less than f8. If I shot a close up of a persons face, focused on their left eye...their ear was in focus. What was worst still was the camera would give me a positive focus lock when it was completely out of focus. If I focused on a high contrast object....then released focus lock and pressed it again...the lens would change focus point and give me another positive lock. Do this 20 times and get 20 different results.
It could be my 20D, but it works fine with my Canon 70-200 2.8L, Tam 28-75 and Canon 50 1.8 (ok, this one front focuses slightly).
It's a shame because I loved this lens. Everything about it was professional caliber. I would recommend this lens to anyone...I would just tell them to try them on their camera first. Well, I would advise anyone to do that with any new lens purchase for a DSLR.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
coppertop
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1385
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $615.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images, fast focus, solidly built, very nice lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
40mm
|
|
|
If you can live with the 40mm end, this lens can't be beat. There was some issues with earlier copies but Canon has resolved this issue.
For me, I needed more than 40mm on the telephoto end and returned it. If it extended to 85 or 105mm, this may be the perfect lens (if the price was right).
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2006
|
|
borderlight
Offline
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1692
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent contrast, somewhat flare restistant, lightweight, good zoom range for 1.6x. internal focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
This is a handy lens for event coverage, especially with a 1.6x DSLR. I used to shoot weddings with two Mamiya 6s with a 50mm, 75mm, and 150mm. This is basically the same coverage 27-65mm... OK a little short on the long end in comparison, but easily an equal by simply walking a few steps closer to the subject.
At f4 it is excellent, and by 5.6 it begins to hit the mark. I have always made indoor event shots with a flash so faulting a wide-angle zoom of this caliber because it isn't faster, or doesn't have IS is crazy. Indoors it defaults to f4 @ 1/60 (Program) at 400 ISO. This gives me flash stopping power with beautiful backgrounds. See for yourself (99% of both weddings were shot with this lens).
http://www.pbase.com/borderlight
This lens combined with a couple of fast primes can do almost any assignment you get. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2006
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, AF Speed, Flare Control, Sharp Center, Works great on 5D(UWA) or 20D(Standard Zoom)
|
|
Cons:
|
Border sharpness is soft on FF wide open, Vignetting @ F4 - F8
|
|
|
With the other UWA L zooms canon makes...this is the cheapest...but its a performer. I have tested this lens vs. the pricey 17-35L 2.8 on the 5D and 20D....the 17-40 holds its own and even outperforms the 17-35L at some focal lengths. Flare control is better on the 17-40L, which is important for highcontast landscapes shot into the sun. In conclusion...a outstanding buy for FF or Crop sensors!
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2006
|
|
forestwan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $660.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
useful walk-around lens
great pictures,
great sharpness and contrast,
and great AF.
amazingly low flare
|
|
Cons:
|
None to this price.
|
|
Very useful walk-around lens for a 1.6x crop camera, I use this lends and EF-70-200/2.8L on my 350D to walk around Japan, I really enjoy the trips with it, especially the low weight compared with 70-200,hehe.
http://spaces.msn.com/perfect-life-japan/
Great pictures, great sharpness and contrast, and great AF.
Flare is amazingly low for such a wide glass.
One only shortcoming is the distortion on the wide end, It's not a f/2.8, but I would not pay the extra money for one f-stop.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2006
|
|
Rigardt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, colours, sharp, wide
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit slow
|
|
|
Build quality is what is expected of an Canon L.
I have read many of the reviews here before purchasing one and think that I might have struck it lucky with a good unit. It is pretty sharp all the way through and only slightly softer at f4. One step down and it holds all the way through. Corners as slightly softer at 17mm as well, but again is only slight and takes some serious scrutiny to notice it. Many of the faults I have found was based on previous reviews and did not find it to be visible at first glance at all.
It is not as sharp as the 50 f1.4 or Sigma 150 Macro that I have. These are the bench marks in my arsenal, but have to admit that the drop in sharpness is very marginal and it takes some serious cropping and magnifying to appreciate the difference.
AF is very quick and accurate. I am most surprised that it has not hunted at all during the week that I have had it. Most of the time that I have used it has been during poor light hours of the day. In general it is to slow for handholding in poor light, but it still focusses true.
Oh, yes, have I mentioned wide? Very wide! Barrel distortion could perhaps be a bit better at the wide end, but is not to bad considering the range.
All in all I am very happy with the lens and would encourage anyone who would like to purchase. F2 would have been nice, but not the end of the world not having it.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2006
|
|
Canonised
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Colour, Sharpness at mid stops
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 is slow and not useable in low light and evening indoor events. Size.
|
|
|
I researched a long time for a solid best bang for the buck wide angle zoom and narrowed to this model and Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4. It was a very close call and decided in favour of the f4L because I liked my other L lens very much. I have had my lens for about a month now and I think its no where as good as everyone makes it out to be but its still a good wide angle zoom lens. Unfortunately it does not perform equally well all through the zoom distances as well as f stops. It is unuseable as a party camera or for low light indoor shots.
But if you can get good light, this lens works and very effective.
I will keep this lens because its good for the money paid BUT I am not sure I would buy another one in the future. I would go for a wide angle prime instead.
BTW - I am not sure if the Tamron would have performed any better with my type of use. Having a 2.8 is not much more faster IMHO. The real difference can only be seen under f2 for low light situation.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2006
|
|
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1620
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It`s the sort of lens that grows on you. Solid build. should last a long time.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at corners on FF
|
|
|
I`ve had this lens a long time, I mainly use it on the FF 1dsmk2. It`s one of those lenses that doesn`t smack you around the face with the WOW factor but!! the more you use it and the more other zoom lenses you buy after it makes you realise that as far as zooms go this is a stellar performer. For me, one of the things that make this a good lens is that it is consistent. It isn`t quite on par with primes but on the printed page there isn`t much to choose. It does go off a bit right in the corners but really makes up for it in the central 2/3rds. It`s not without a touch of cA but nothing bad, it`s not without a touch of flare but not bad. It is a lens that I can rely on when I need the wide end. As I say, you might not be blown away by the out and out quality of the images as opposed to primes but as far as zooms go it is as good as most good zooms and better than a hell of a lot of the others.I have a really good copy of a Sigma 20 1.8 and at the edges it beats this lens but 1/3rd in and the L takes over. I like using the 20 for the bright finder but in the real world the flexibility of the 17-40 range makes this more worthwhile in a lot of situations. My re-evaluation of this lens is brought about by the recent purchase of a 24-105IS that I`m not impressed with.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
LeonD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 227
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
Probably the first L for most(this or the 70-200F4).Great package for the relatively "low" price(in comparison).Probably the best (Canon)standard zoom you can have on a 1.6 crop.I took back my 17-85 IS for this.If you're a wide angle fan this lens is wonderful,if its all you do you would probably be better off with the 16-35 2.8 since its more versatile.Some people are under the impression this lens is soft and produces blurry images,mine performs great.But it is true that small apertures are its true sweet spot,though F4 and 5.6 are still in the very good range.
Why pay L price for a lens that has similar characteristics to a budget lens?(slightly soft wide open,sharp around F8)? That is up to you.For one,when i say soft i compare it to its sharpest,which is considerably more than cheaper alternatives.Also it amazingly well built,solid,sleek and weather sealed,a very good job on its body.Still,do not drop it.
Colors out of this lens are great,USM is the fastest of all my lenses.Should always use its lens hood.
It also comes with a very close focal distance which lets you shoot some nice closeups at 40mm.Use this lens right and youd be surprised how much detail your landscapes and architecture shots can have.
Like most wides in this range,tHe lens barrel distorts a bit at 17mm,this is bad for most people but to me its like having a slight fisheye mode in my lens.Nice for landscapes,very bad for portraits.This lens does not like faces too much,you can use it for portraits at 40mm but truly this is its weakest spot,but why would you buy this to do portraits?
A great lens for its price IMO.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
gliphix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super Wide Angle, Size & Weight, Build, Excellent Optics
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulky Hood, No IS, F stop
|
|
I don't claim to a pro at this after all it's just a hobby at this point for me since someone bought me a Canon EOS 350D. The 17-40mm was my first L and most favorite optics so far... It works wonders for landscape shots especially here in Hawai'i.
If you care to take a look, please be my guess. Feedback and creative comments are always welcome...
Pbase Gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/gliphix
Favorites @ DCPrints:
http://gliphix.dpcprints.com
Impossible missions with this lens, so i think:
http://gliphix.dpcprints.com/278820
http://www.pbase.com/gliphix/image/54382338
Thanks and Regards,
Jc
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955749
|
Jun 9, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$672.06
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.51
|
8.87
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
