 |
|
|
gandhisan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic build quality. Image quality is superb. One of my best lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
F/4 can be slow at times.
|
|
|
|
|
 Sep 27, 2005
|
|
burtonburton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quick focus, light
|
|
Cons:
|
-
|
|
|
This is my first EF lens. I was an FD primes fan until recently, but this zoom lens revealed to me what a quality zoom can do. Together with a 350D it is a great combination. As walkaround lens it is a little bit short for me, but I needed a good quality zoomlens which covers 35mm (35mm equivalent).
As people lens it can be great if you find a suitable background. Background blur can be obtained zoomed in only with the lens wide open and your subject really close and the background far away. Pictures are sharp wide open. It's fast AF makes it a pleasure to work with. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2005
|
|
caveman_lee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good color and contrast, light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
the lens hood is nearly useless. Some distortion over the edge, but not series in my 300D.
|
|
|
This is a very decent WA lens given the price. Sharp at F4 and very sharp when stop down. The most pleasing aspects are that the color retention and contract are very good. These make the key differences between it and the kit lens.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2005
|
|
miguel_radar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
From weight to is razor sharp image, passing by the great price for a L glass,with a solid body weather sealed...
|
|
Cons:
|
The little "vacum clener" made by the inner lens mechanics.
|
|
|
Happy, no i´m thriling with this lens, sharp and great color saturation... Just a must have lens.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2005
|
|
gml1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing sharpness, solor, and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Corner softness at 35mm+. Wish it was a 15-40mm.
|
|
|
Before getting the 17-40L, I already had the 10-22mm EF-S and also the 24-70L. The 10-22 did not quite work for me, though. I would only occasionally need a wide angle shot (which, btw, would never be wider than 15mm) and even then I would find myself reluctant to switch to the 10-22 just for a single shot. So, I sold the 10-22 and got the 17-40L.
First impressions of the 17-40L - at 17mm, the sharpness is good corner to corner even at F4; at F8 the sharpness is simply amazing. At 28mm, central sharpness continues to be amazing but corner sharpness starts showing signs of deterioration. At 35mm the situation is still bearable and at 40mm things start falling apart. Central sharpness is still pretty good, though.
Compared to the 10-22 in the 17-22mm range, I find the 17-40L better. The problem with the 10-22mm is not its sharpness but its colors. It’s artificially contrasty, the colors look somehow enhanced but at the same time dull, so the image straight out of the camera ends up being kind of flat. The 17-40L has more natural and rich colors and I find the overall image quality to be much better. CA is slightly better controlled in the 10-22mm, though.
Compared to the 24-70L – at 24mm, the 17-40L is sharper at the center and slightly softer at the corners. At 40mm, the overall image quality of the 24-70L is better. CA is better controlled on the 17-40L than on the 24-70L.
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2005
|
|
javiersaenz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
I am very happy,i's another world. This is a lens of Professional Series, and these is mark of QUALITY, not that the SIGMA 18-50 2.8, sigma 24-70 or tamron 28-75.
This is a really angular lens to landscape.
From this moment, i only buy L lens, you pay QUALITY and you don't stay dissapointed if you pay a L lens.
My next lens will be the 70-200 4.0 L, 50mm 1.4 and the 100 2.8 Macro.
These last aren't L lens but have a incredible quality as a L lens.
I recommend, if you have a dSLR, buy great lens, because the body and the lens have to be the best.
Regards from Spain, Javier.
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2005
|
|
Xavier Rival
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 3946
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful landscape lens. Good optics, sharp, little flare, good colors. Great build quality. Price just right for a great lens, which is not f/2.8. Standard 77mm filters. Appropriate for close-ups.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is a little large, but one gets used to that.
|
|
|
I have owned this lens for 15 months, and used it with a 10D. My main interest in this range are landscapes and scenics; the 17-40 performs very well in these areas. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it also delivers some nice close-ups at the minimum focusing distance (28cm). It works also very well as a standard lens for a 1.6x crop camera.
Build quality is great; the size is ok (except the hood is a little large).
Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2005
|
|
Mike Mahoney
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5434
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
light, fast enough for my uses, not too expensive, well built, reasonably sharp with very little flare.
|
|
Cons:
|
objectionable amounts of CA and barrel distortion, (even with the 1.6 crop), hood is massive.
|
|
|
I am a little dissapointed in the overall image quality as I had expected something a little better having read the reviews.
My first Canon lens after two decades of Nikkors and I'm not overly impressed ... best thing I can find to say is "adequate".
But a good walkabout or everyday lens.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2005
|
|
dafrica
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Sep 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light, sharp, fast focusing, good 'normal' range on my 20d
|
|
Cons:
|
if it had IS or was f/2.8 that would be great! but i like it as it is.
|
|
|
I use this lens as my walkaround lens. It's smaller and lighter than my 28-70 -- much lighter -- so I don't know why anyone would complain about it's size and weight.
I find this lens to be very sharp even wide open and of course stopped down it is excellent. I also had very high expectations, but I wasn't disappointed at all. I've used this lens in all types of situations -- inside/outside/weddings/street/etc. and I think it's quite versatile and the 27.2mm to 64mm range on my 20D is great for my purposes.
Also, I knew this was an f/4 lens when I bought it, so I use my primes for low light situations. That's NOT why I got the 17-40.
Lastly, I am a pixel peeper & ran many tests with this lens after I received it to make sure I had a good copy and I'm happy to say that I guess I got an excellent copy!
|
|
|
Sep 1, 2005
|
|
Vole
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 797
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built. Fast, precise focusing. Ermmm...
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible image quality @ 40mm f/4. Not brilliant stopped down. WAY too big and heavy for this range/speed.
|
|
|
Well what can I say. I bought this Lens with pretty high expectations. To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement...
Now maybe I just got a bad copy (in which case it still deserves the '2' rating for the bad QC) But this Lens was simply terrible wide open, REALLY soft. Stopping down to f/4.5 improved things greatly, but still it wasn't what I'd expect from an expensive 'L' Lens (£580 in the UK !?!)
I also own the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX and as crazy as it sounds this Lens is sharper @ f/2.8 than the 17-40L is @ f/5.6 throughout the entire range. I wish I'd done some comparison shots but I couldn't get the thing back to the store fast enough.
This Lens is slow enough already without having to stop down to get a reasonable image.
I have the 70-200mm f/4L and the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro and these are exceptional Lenses. The 17-40L is not. If you're looking for a Lens in this range for your 1.6x crop dSLR, do yourself a favour and go with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX instead. It's a whole stop faster, a whole lot smaller, a whole lot sharper and a whole lot cheaper.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2005
|
|
LB31291
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $689.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Desirable range, fast and quiet focus, built well.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, poor quality given expectations and rants about it.
|
|
|
Expensive, dark pictures not as clear or as good as my $199 Quantaray 28-200. You all may think I am crazy, but I have tested my Quantaray against this $$$ lens over and over and the Quantaray takes better, sharper pics close up. The Canon is equal to slightly better at greater distances. Overall the Canon is a HUGE disappointment for an "L" lens I have heard so much about. I think I may swap for the Tamron 18-75 XR. I have yet to see that lens produce a lousy photo.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2005
|
|
thanks5050
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, also very silent, build quality is great but at the same time it is reasonably light and small, photos are always sharp, colours are ok
|
|
Cons:
|
Too big lens hood, expensive filter
|
|
|
I am vey happy with this lens. I use it on my Canon 20d (1,6x crop), so it becomes more or less a 27-64mm, which means that it gives a me a good focal range: from wide angle lens to "normal" lens (50mm) and something more.
The thing I like most is the AF: fast as a thought.. I mean, you press the button and the subjedt is IMMEDIATELY focused. No lags. Street photographers know that this is a real treasure.
My evaluation is now enriched by the fact that yesterday I bought a Canon 28-70 L USM, which is fast too, but not as fast as the 17-40.
Moreover the 17-40 USM is so silent, nobody can hear it.
The results (photos) are also very good ones: 100% of the photos are well focused, always sharp, with good colours, even if they are not the superb colours I get from my prime lens Sigma 105mm. But after all, a 17-40 (for film) or a 27-64 (APS size digital sensor), is not a lens for protrait, so this does not worry me.
Other pros: it is reasonably small and also light (which is good for handheld work, being a f4 instead of a f2.8).
Cons: the biggest one concerns the lens hood, so big, seems a weird joke, and you never find room enough in your bags for it.
The filter I bought to protect the lens is a bit expensive, it costs more or less the 6-7% of the whole lens! But as we are talkingh about a 600$ lens, if someone decides such an investment, he probably can afford the filter too.
I suggest this lens to every Canon SLR owner.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2005
|
|
Sojourner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a razorblade, excellent on a 1,6 crop camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy on a 350D body, many would think. But I find it quite OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2005
|
|
mg98
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $660.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Great FOV on 20D; even more fun on film SLR. Great detail and sharpness after service calibration.
|
|
Cons:
|
Had to get warranty service done (adjustment) to get it up to snuff.
|
|
|
I reviewed this lens a couple of months ago. It didn't stand up very well to my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (which so many at this site rave about) at 28mm or 40mm. Yet, I still really liked this lens and wanted it to succeed (I think I just really like its FOV). Finally, I decided I should get it calibrated/recalibrated by the Canon Service people and see if it made a difference. I just got it back today and did a newsprint (actually a magazine) test at 40mm & f/6.3 using raw format. I took 3 shots with each lens and opened the files in Photoshop CS2; I selected the best of each 3 at 100% magnification and compared the two winners. Finally, the 17-40 f/4.0L not only matched the Tamron, it bettered it.
It irks me that I had to go through this process to get an optimally functioning lens, but it was true with the Tamron as well (I had sent back my first version of the Tamron due to lackluster performance; finally receiving a copy that impressed me). If I were to rate this re-calibrated version of the 17-40 f/4.0L, I would now give it a 9+ instead of the 8 I gave it the first time. It's taken a lot of wrangling to get good versions of my 3 zooms (my Canon 70-200 f/4.0L was the only one that gave me great performance from the very start with the first copy), but now I'm quite happy with and would recommend all/any of them..:)
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2005
|
|
Deanster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $679.95
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quick focusing, solid built
|
|
Cons:
|
Supplied hood is almost useless
|
|
|
Being one of 'cheapest 'L' glass' that Cannon makes, I was very much surprised with the sharp, crisp quality of shots this lens produce. I find myself using this lens more than any of my others. I would recommend this lens to anyone without hesitation.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2005
|
|
jeff_c
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 13, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
fast USM, sharp across frame, weather sealed, relatively light
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion, need filter to seal front element, limited range
|
|
|
My first L lens. I bought this lens to replace the 18-55 kit. Instead of doing formal tests, I took a lot of "real world shots" and at first did not see enough of a difference in pic quality to justify the extra cash. However then I set it up on a tripod and tested both the kit lens and 17-40, and although both had good sharpness in the middle, the 17-40 was much much better in the corners. This, plus the build quality and USM make it a keeper.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955746
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
