 |
|
|
tony1989tony
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact and Light - Resistance to flare - Fast USM - sharpness - contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood mount grinds away against the body and produces a black powder/dust, so does the 70-200mm F4L hood. Not really L finish quality as per the 400 F5.6 L
|
|
|
The first time I used this was in the studio on a 10d, previewing my first images I knew I was on to a good thing, its the kind of lens that creates images that put a smile on your face, you know the pin sharp results will blow everyone away. It is cheaper that the 16-35 for a few reasons and you can tell, but having said that, in the right hands this could give the F2.8 an even match.
|
|
 Nov 15, 2005
|
|
FJoe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2003
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Optical quality
|
|
|
I had not very high expectations, because it is an ultra wide angle zoom. But CA and corner softness is a bit too high for this price level lens. Even on my 1,6 crop factor.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2005
|
|
tri vo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 350
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great pictures right out of the camera!
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This is a great lens. I had some cheaper lenses, but I found that none of them even came close to my 50 1.8 so I never used them. Finally a lens that has great pictures right out of the camera. For those on a budget less than the cost of this lens (like me), if you can make it happen, this lens takes great pictures and I am very happy with it. Its focal length allows you to do so much.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2005
|
|
MartinM2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Consistent excellent sharpness, color, contrast at all apertures, all focal lenghths, and across the frame on a cropped camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 aperture is slow for indoors
|
|
|
Bottom line, for this focal length and this aperture, nothing is better.
The lens is very sharp wide open across the frame, and I'm not just saying usable sharp. I have a hard time telling what aperture I shot at if it's not close up where depth of field makes it apparent.
It has that "L" color and contrast. It almost gives your photos a 10% or more boost in saturation without any post processing, and the combination of contrast gives that pop and dimension to your photos.
Build quality is as good as it gets.
USM is as fast as it gets, and FTM focus is very handy.
It's really hard to say anything bad about it other than F4 doesn't make this a low light indoor lens, but that's what primes are for.
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2005
|
|
thatoutdoorguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 151
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent colors and contrast. smooth operation, typically quick focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
sharpness occasionally disappoints
|
|
|
i originally bought it to allow wide angle shots on my dreb (and now on my 20d). i have been very pleased, and it has become my standard walk around lens.
recently had a chance to use both the 17-40 and the 16-35 on a 1dsII and saw _no_ noticable differences in the images they captured.
one often overlooked bonus is that this lens has a very short minimum focusing distance which allows an interesting perspective (at the 17mm end) and good closeups (at the 40mm end).
overall very pleased. definitely recommended.
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2005
|
|
hubsand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2035
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Nicely made. Not awful optically. Er . . .
|
|
Cons:
|
Relatively expensive. Not very good optically.
|
|
The shame of it. Absolutely mediocre - even the price is middling: not too expensive, not too cheap. Not too bad, but certainly far from critically sharp - in fact, grotesquely inadequate for the 1Ds II or 5D unless stopped down to f16. Averagely well controlled CA, moderately sharp centre frame, pretty well distortion corrected, quite perky colour . . . I've nothing but a litany of faint praise for this lens, which is ultimately extremely damning for an L lens of this price.
I've tested three samples, the worst of which was tested here: http://www.16-9/net/lens_tests
The best of them were OK, but frankly not as good as the Sigma 15-30mm I replaced it with. This lens struggles to outperform a healthy 12-24mm, and is hugely embarassed by decent primes in its range - though obviously not Canon's of course (24L and 35L excepted)!
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2005
|
|
RitterRunkel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 4, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $690.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, price, fast and silent AF
|
|
Cons:
|
soft corners wide open, f/4
|
|
|
I like it. It's well build and not throughout of plastic! Other L-Lenses also have elements made of plastic. At least the switches. The tube holding the lenses is metal and very solid and feels well in my hand.
You get a lens, which is even protected against dust and it's fast and noiseless. It's worth the money. Sharpness is good, except a little softness in the corners wide open. There also seems to be a few chromatic aberrations sometimes, but they are just slightly visible and marginal. Against the Kit-lens for the 20D, the 18-55 EF-S these aberrations are nothing and not even worth to be mentioned.
Never had problems in 10 months, I would buy it again!
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2005
|
|
Robertdrake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 171
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $950.00
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft focusing
|
|
|
Couldn't get a decent sharp image out of this lens, worse than my sub-$200 lenses. Sent for repair, just try getting any informative communication from Canon when you send your very expensive "L" lenses to them. No replies to voice mail or email. After being a loyal Canon customer for 35 years, I've had enough of them.
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2005
|
|
Robertdrake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 171
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $950.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sorry, nothing
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft focusing, notorious for focusing issues
|
|
|
Mine wasn't as sharp as my cheapie sub-$200 lenes. Sent it for Canon to have a look at it, and can't even get them to give me a trmeframe for the repair. Never again!
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2005
|
|
Mad Monte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide lens good for APS SLR's. Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Great lens on my 6.3 APS sized Rebel. I sold my 18mm-55mm kit lens and got this one. Photos I took before look quite " lackluster " compared to photos taken with this lens. I must say photos straight out of the camera to the computer look a bit dark to me , but a minute or so with the PHotoshop Elememnt 3 brightens them up. Quality is great and I have blow up many shots to 20 by 30 and sold with this camera and lens combo. ( I do also 24 by 36 three shot vertical stitch shots which come out great blown up as well) No need for the 16.7 meg camera doing this little trick!! The lens also is used on my Cheapy K2 Film Rebel as well and have the full 17mm view is awesome.. I give this lens a 10!!!
|
|
|
Nov 4, 2005
|
|
jd1566
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 46
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good wide angle coverage for film and full frame digital
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality is shocking
|
|
|
I have been overall quite happy with the results of this lens, and seeing as I bought it because I couldn't afford the 16-35.. I think it is money well spent. Though the 1mm difference is quite a lot at the wide angle, you still get impressive wide angle vistas.. I use it very often with landscape and interior photography.
F4 means that in low light it hunts, but that is the nature of the beast.
Build quality for an L lens is quite shocking.. I always thought it was quite robust, until I dropped my padded camera backpack from about a metre onto grass and dirt.. The lens snapped in two! A lens, like a chain, is only as strong as the weakest link, and plastic is used throughout! Well, it is being repaired and will hopefully be back up to speed again.. Of course I will be a bit more careful with it, but I expected better quality from an L lens. Canon is not involved in the repair as it is out of warranty, so a third party repair guy is fixing it for me.
Overall though, if you are in the market for a decent ultra-wide, and especially now that the price has dropped, by all means go for it.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2005
|
|
mbarrow67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price (especially compared to the 16-35 f2.8), image quality, build
|
|
Cons:
|
Range (but I knew this when purchasing), hood fitting
|
|
|
I have owned this lens for around a month, and have taken around 300 shots with it. On the 20D, the range makes it very nice 'walk around' lens, although a slightly longer range would be nice (maybe 17-50). That said, I knew the range when I bought it, and chose the more pleasing pictures and fixed apatrure of this lens over the better range of the 17-85; this is the personal choice you need to make.
Build quality and ergonomics are excellent, with one single exception, my lens hood does not sit tightly, but wobbles slightly. This makes no difference to the excellent optical quality, and really is only a small complaint. The camera mount is tight and rubber sealed.
I tend to keep the lens attached to the camera most of the time, and have had a few interested looks and comments on it's size, albeit a factor of 10 fewer than with the 70-200 IS mounted!
If you're reading this, you're probably trying to decide between this and either the 16-35 or the 17-85. I decided to save $700 and take a risk on the f4, and have not had a problem yet. I regularly use the lens handheld around dusk without problems, and for important shots that I will enlarge (sunsets/skyscapes/landscapes/indoor group shots), I always use a tripod, so a longer exposure is much less critical. I believe the 16-35 performs maginally better corner-to-corner on a FF camera, but on the 20D, this 17-40 really is excellent.
Whilst not quite as sharp and vibrant as the 17-40, the 17-85 was still excellent, but with rumours at the time of something in the 24-105 f4 range, I decided I'd rather have the quality and long-term residual values of two L's, than the more economical, but more versatile 17-85.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2005
|
|
mrkon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 503
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $544.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
L glass, sharp, vibrant colors, contrast, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
Really sharp glass even wide open at f/4. The build quality is superb, the colors are dead on and rendered very vibrant. Not much post processing is required with this lens.
Though it is quite spendy for a f/4, this lens wasn't intended for portraits or low light anyway. This is more of a landscape lens, and it does a hell of a job at it. I'm still amazed at the level of detail this baby produced on my XT. I'm definitely keeping this one when I go FF in the future.
Surprisingly, this lens is also a decent performer at ISO 1600 @ f/4. The noise was surprisingly low, and the color noise wasn't all over the place. It was very controlled.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2005
|
|
malla1962
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, build quality, colour and contrast. Excellent value L glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
I'm not going to complain like others about it being F4, as I knew that fact before I bought it, and I don't find it a problem. Not too keen on the hood.
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a wide angle for my 20D and found it superb. It's sharp and color and contrast are just out of this world. Just upgraded to a 1D, and I find results are even better. Super wide.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2005
|
|
sigbusyff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Oct 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, well-built, relatively inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly soft wide open at 40mm.
|
|
|
Like many others, I bought this as a 17-55mm kit lens replacement. It's not sensible to compare the two lenses; this one is streets ahead.
It's perfectly possible to get decent pictures with the kit lens; if you're in bright sunlight, and thus can stop it down a bit, you'll be fine, except at the very wide end where the kit lens is quite soft all the time. I went for this lens to sharpen up that wide end.
I wasn't disappointed. This lens is very sharp, even at f/4, and produces lovely contrasty colours. AF is as fast and precise as you'd expect, and it's very solid (but remember you do need to buy a UV filter to completely seal the front).
On the downside, sharpness drops off wide open at 40mm, but it sharpens up again if you stop it down even just a little. Of course, it'd be great if it was faster, but given the reasonable price you can probably get yourself a fast prime for indoor available light stuff.
Overall - recommended.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2005
|
|
Jakob D.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Not THAT sharp
|
|
|
A friend of mine just bought this yesterday and I took it for a spin today. All-in-all, it's a decent lens, but it produces no where near the level of sharpness other raters have stated it does. That doesn't mean it's not a good lens, though.
Edge softness is an issue with this copy, and keep in mind that this is on a 1.6x 20D! I expected some quality drop-off, but not as much as was actually there. Either this copy isn't all that good, or the MTF chart for this lens is way off...
There is some distortion, but on a 1.6x, it's hardly an issue.
This is not a low-light lens, but I gave it a shot anyway and found that in some situations w/ non-moving subjects, shots could be exposed properly at an acceptable speed for hand-holding. Most, however, required a tripod and mirror-lockup. Even with that effort, however, the lens will not produce VERY sharp images (i.e. EF-S 60mm macro).
If you're in the market for a wide-angle zoom, this will do.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
953268
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
