 |
|
|
AutoMotoMedia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great picture quality, light weight, good value
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic barrel
|
|
Here's a few pictures I have taken with it.
http://automotomedia.net/showthread.php/86-Canon-17-40l-Great-lens
My only problem with it is when I dropped my first one while on my camera and the lens broke off leaving the metal mount on the camera. I liked it enough to buy another one however. 
|
|
 Mar 11, 2011
|
|
BMsPics
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2011
Location: Argentina
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
I only had the Lens for a few Days and granted I am not a pro or anything like that, but I have been taking pictures for a couple of years now and I can say that what seems to be lack of sharpness is due to the lens high quality. In other words is a very demanding lens that would be altered by the smallest disturbances.
If you got this lens you must a) know what you are doing b) have the right tripod c) realistic settings for the picture you are taking.
This as lens is an L lens that is bound to give you the best quality pictures in the world within the range for which it was intended.
Many people say this lens does not need IS, and is true for most of the time, however and option such as the 70-200, with IS would be appreciated by many (not me tough), especially those that want a walk around casual lens.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2011
|
|
Kaeru
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 2, 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I would like to add that if you are looking for the sharpest ultimate ultra wide zoom lens for full frame, get Tokina 16-28mm 2.8. It's much sharper than 16-35 II and 17-40. It's sharp at extreme corners already at F4. It's VERY heavy so I sold it to a friend but it was the sharpest I have ever seen. As sharp as Nikon's UWA zooms, if not better.
http://www.popphoto.com/lens-test/2010/12/tested-tokina-x-16-28mm-f28-pro-fx
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2011
|
|
Kaeru
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 2, 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
No lens flare, sharp corner to corner (between F8-F11), weighs only 475g! 77mm filter size.
|
|
Cons:
|
HUGE sample variations. Worst quality control I have ever seen among Canon lenses.
|
|
I rate this lens '10' ONLY for my second copy. My first copy would have been barely '5'.
I own 16-35 2.8L II but I rarely use 2.8-5.6 as I only shoot landscape and I want my gear to be as light as possible for backpacking. Also I'm not happy with 16-35's 88mm filter size since I cannot share the filter with my other lenses.
I was very skeptical of this lens due to mixed reviews but after I read the review on terragalleria.com with comments from well-regarded photographers supporting the comparison result, I decided to give it a try.
http://terragalleria.com/blog/2010/08/17/canon-wide-angle-zooms-comparisonreview-16-35f2-8-l-ii-v-17-40f4-l/
My first copy was horrible, nothing like the tested sample on terragalleria.com so I returned it and I got another copy, which was sharper but still the left bottom corner was pretty soft even at F11-F13. So I took it to Canon and asked them if they can fix it. Two weeks later, I got a call from Canon saying they "calibrated" it. I was really surprised with results from my tuned 17-40mm. It's like another lens. At F8, it defeats my 16-35 II and my friend's 16-35 II in terms of sharpness from center to corners.
However, 16-35 II remains sharper in corners at any aperture wider than F8. So if you need to shoot under low-light with hand-held, go for 16-35 II. If you use tripod in low-light, get 17-40, it's more flare resistant.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2011
|
|
bartolomej
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
lightweight, my lens is very sharp, built quality is above standard, bargain price
|
|
Cons:
|
soft corners, at 17mm it produces strong barrel distortion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2010
|
|
tuanv1980
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 152
|
|
Review Date: Sep 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $540.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, Sharp, L built, inexpensive compare to other canon UWA, and Fixed F4
|
|
Cons:
|
I have none so far
|
|
|
I have this lens for one week on my 5d2. I love the UWA and different aspect to my image it provided. I bought it used but I got an ultra sharp copy...almost as sharp as my Canon 24-70mm, therefore it stay attached to my 5d2 75% of the time now.
I think this is a great buy especially on the 2nd hand market where the price range between $500-600. Compare to the canon 16-35mm at 1/3 the price, this is a steal. Overall, I mainly using this for landscape so so f4 will do just fine, but when stop down to about f8, this is especially sharp.
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2010
|
|
Jos Tesseract
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 615
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
crystal clear and sharp, good flare control, good range for club/party enviro, lightweight!
|
|
Cons:
|
slow AF, AF hunts, doesn't work well when partial metering, poor fall off at edges
|
|
|
I rented this lens for a weekend, hoping to get some awesome pictures. It seemed to me that this lens best excelled at end of day, when the sun was setting. That pre-twilight hour sun really allowed this lens to give that L-series pop. However, during overcast moments, the colours were flat. With flash added, the colours were better, but my results were reminiscent of a point and shoot camera.
The lens itself is surprisingly lightweight, which is a god send at 4am.
Overall, it's a nice lens, but not one I see myself buying any time soon.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010
|
|
marcinklysewic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent built quality, fast and silent
|
|
Cons:
|
lack of sharpenss
|
|
|
i got this lens 3 days ago and i was testing it heavily on my canon 40d camera. i have to say that i love the built quality and quiet and fast usm. the problem is that my lens didn't produce sharp images at all. i shoot in raw and i had to correct sharpness on every single photo. i tested this lens shooting landscape and then at home on tripod comparing it to canon 18-55 kit lens that i got for £35 second hand. there was no or very little difference. i tested it with and without filters, using F4, F8, F11 and F22 at ISO100-400 using AF and MF.
it was very frustrating experience. i have Canon 70-200 F4 lens and the IQ is superb. i was expecting the same from Canon 17-40 lens as it is a member of L series.
either i'm not lucky and my copy of this lens has some fault in optics or it's a wide angle thing - images in general are not that sharp. i don't know but my decision was to return this lens.
shocking for me was that it was impossible to find difference between images from this lens and 18-55 kit one. little bit better colours but both lenses produce photos of same quality sharpness which for me is unacceptable.
if you buy it i just hope you'll have more luck then me.
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2010
|
|
timothyjames
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 13, 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent build quality, fast accurate focussing, nice colours. useful zoom range - ultra wide on full frame!
|
|
Cons:
|
my copy was not very sharp. 'reasonable' would be my pixel peeping opinion of the sharpness. if top end sharpness is a must i'd have to say don't buy this lens, go for a prime instead. massively distorted at 17mm (this is probably inevitable with such wide angles, but it is very noticeable on anything below 24mm). bokeh on full frame is smooth and even but F4 isn't big enough to produce anything really nice.
|
|
|
the zoom range (mainly talking about angle of view) on full frame sensor (5dm2) is particularly useful for a 'walkaround' lens. by that i mean the angles and framing you can capture inside and for people allow for very few missed opportunities. perhaps a little on the short side for portraits on full frame, it's ideal for landscapes and indoor photography/architecture (assuming you have enough light). the lack of sharpness is my main gripe with this lens, considering the price and weight, imho when you have this attached you may want better results. go for prime? go for a more expensive zoom? that said, if you're not printing large or pixel peeping, this is an excellent lens. distortion at 17-20mm will call for correction in photoshop depending on what's in the picture (people's faces for example, will look unnatural in the edges of the photo).
as an aside, F4 is a bit on the small side for me. i mainly shoot with a f2.0 now and that is a much more versatile aperture. those looking for a versatile walkaround lens should look at getting something with f 2.8 ability at least. those looking for very shallow depth of field should also look at wider aperture options. this isn't necessarily negative feedback, as F4 is a clearly published spec and there is no grey area or anything regarding this, so it is more a mention of my experience with the lens in general shooting conditions. knowing if F4 is a wide enough aperture for you should be a research issue, i personally didn't research this thoroughly enough and have found that it's not quite bright enough for shooting handheld without a flash indoors. going to iso 3200 on the 5dm2 is still useable even in dim conditions but obviously such high ISO settings should be avoided unless grainy is what you're going for.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010
|
|
micos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, size and handling, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Overall image quality, AF issues
|
|
|
I had this lens for 5 years on 20,40 and 7D and it was real love-hate relationship. I took close to 100.000 images in almost every imaginable situation, photo journalism, weddings and landscape work. After 5 years, mechanically it was exactly the same as on the first day when I got it (O.K. I take care of my stuff) which tells the story of the build quality. Unfortunately, image quality vise it was the different story: nothing special to complain about but nothing to be particularly excited about either.
Sharpness is so-so wide open and it gets better just marginally when stopped-down. In fact, in real life I could hardly even say the difference if the lens was stopped down to about F.8 or used wide open. After F. 9.0 diffraction clearly brings IQ down so do not expect miracles with extreme stopping down.
Fine details of relatively distant objects (trees, branches and leafs for instance) are just a dream for this lens unless they are geometric forms. Colors and contrast are fine but again lack of sharpness gives a dull impression to the images. Image post processing is a must and it in fact improves the story quite a bit.
Recently (well, maybe year ago) my sample developed weird AF behaviour, throwing AF at the back, in particular at 17-20mm setting. Mechanical check showed everything was perfectly fit inside the lens. Body problems are excluded as it acted same on three different calibrated cameras. It was still able to find right focus point, but using it for serious work was at the end pure gambling. I spoke with a couple Canon trained technicians and they all confirmed that this particular lens was prone to AF problems. Again, I am working pro and use my gear on the daily basis, it does not mean that occasional users or all lens samples will end up like this. To cut it short, maintenance for "L" lenses in Canada is now costly business since July 1st 2010 as 300$ flat fee (plus taxes and shipping of course) has been introduced just to open repair order. So, it would came to about 50% of the new lens price just to calibrate 5 years old product! Some of my colleagues had similar issues and after calibrating the lens problem would came back after 6-12 months, depending on use.
That plus overall mediocre optical performance urged me to get rid (yes, get rid) of the long time work horse and look for other options. New 17-40? No way, things are going forward and I have found myself ordering new Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX with Optical stabilizer for a couple of dollars less than new 17-40L and with 10 years warranty. Tried it briefly and liked it a lot, time will tell...
But I already miss handling and build quality of 17-40 , can not say the same for IQ.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2010
|
|
mccc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
I love this lense because have a "L" built and is cheap.
Allmost of this photos are 24-40mm f4 L:
www.mariocaldeira.com
Mc
Portugal
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2010
|
|
nelvayut
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 104
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $623.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
good value L lens, nice price, best wide angle for landscape
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS
|
|
Canon 17-40 is a good lens for landscape photography. Its a great value L lens too. I own this lens since November 2007 and I love it. I took most pictures using this lens and the quality is good as the 24-105.
Here's some samples using the 17-40:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/codeblue1/4747265257/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/codeblue1/4742769376/
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2010
|
|
nycandre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good value for the money - lightweight - very sharp, at least in the center - great zoom coverage
|
|
Cons:
|
not that bright, soft in the corners - rather large
|
|
Remarkably sharp in the center, which means you are better off shooting with cropping in mind if your subject will be off center.
My impressions were corroborated by the excellent review at the-luminous-landscape site: there the authors compare it to the uber professional 16-35 2.8L. And, turns out that aside from not doing the 2.8 thing, the 17-40 and the 16-35 have areas where one is better than the other, but otherwise are really close.
As far as bokeh is concerned, you actually can get some, albeit not as easily as with the 2.8. And its quality is just excellent, not too surprising, since it's at f4.00
Here is a shot demonstrating the center sharpness .. the tiff file, which is about 60 megs shows incredible details, more like a macro, and even the off center resolution is very reasonably sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4743987277/
This other shot shows the quality of the bokeh much better, also its handling of off center areas, which doesnt detract from a great image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4076691149/
And, yes it does great for beautiful leggy ladies ..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4025442567/
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010
|
|
tororo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Flare-resistance, contrast, colour, sharpness (F11~ @ 17mm), weather sealing, zoom-range, light-weight, USM, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing for landscape photography
|
|
I provide images to various international travel/nature magazines including National Geographic and this lens is by far the best EF-mount full frame lens for landscape photography during outdoor activities.
16-35mm F2.8L II is too heavy/big for traveling/activities in nature such as trekking, kayaking, paragliding, etc.
Some people are not happy with soft corners at 17mm at F4-8. But for landscape photography (which you stop down anyway), this is not an issue as it gets as sharp as 16-35mm F2.8L II at F11 (even better if you get a good copy).
Some examples taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413194709/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4606037443
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3506976914/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3071345120/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3961264079/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3506170351/
|
|
|
May 26, 2010
|
|
dustnet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, range, weather sealing, price, 77mm diameter
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS, a bit soft and the edges
|
|
Along with the 70-200 f/4 IS L, this lens is always in my backpack when I'm doing travel photography, here is why:
- Lightweight, you basically don't feel it in your backpack.
- Weather sealed when used with a filter.
- Very fast autofocus.
- No purple fringing like I used to have with my Canon EF-S 10-22mm.
- Distortion is moderate.
- Has 77mm filter diameter, with is the case for a lot of Canon lenses.
Its biggest competitor is the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 II (or I) but I personally don't need f/2.8 with this kind of travel around lens. If I want a nice bokeh at a short focal, I will use my 35mm f/1.4.
If you want to see real situation samples, just check my blog and website:
http://photography.emmanuelrondeau.com
http://blog.emmanuelrondeau.com
Emmanuel.
|
|
|
May 25, 2010
|
|
pdx_photoman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $695.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, unobtrusive, good build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I tend to shoot near the middle of the aperture range, so I have not seen evidence of edge softness as reported by a few others. I tend not to use this lens as much on my 5d as I did on my 10d, but when I need a super WA, I get excellent results. The lens hood is not terribly useful, given the wide field it has to cover, but when you need it, it's there.
|
|
|
May 10, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952990
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
