about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
515 995378 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $670.44
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_

Specifications:
A new and affordable L-series ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that's ideal for both film and digital SLRs. Superior optics are assured by the use of three aspherical lens elements, in addition to a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass element. Optical coatings are optimized for use with digital cameras. This lens focuses as close as 11 inches (0.28m), and offers both Canon's full-time manual focus and a powerful ring-type USM for fast and silent AF. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers the choice of screw-in 77mm filters or a holder in the rear of the lens for up to three gel filters. Finally, it offers weather-resistant construction similar to other high-end L-series lenses.


 


Page:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next
      
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Vole to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LB31291 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add thanks5050 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Sojourner to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mg98 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Deanster to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jeff_c to your Buddy List  
Pell
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1592
Review Date: Jul 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, relatively fast, excellent build, nice range, quality images.
Cons:
The fact this is only rated 9 at the moment. That is an understatement!

Perfect lens for the lower wide angle crowd. Great price for what you get.

Highly recommeneded unless you can afford the 16-35.


Jul 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Pell to your Buddy List  
ranmandx
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 9, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 545
Review Date: Jul 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Size and balance on 20D, great sharpness center to edge, sharp wide open, no CA, build quality.
Cons:
Range, focus ring and zoom ring are smooth but not like silk compared to older manual lenses.

I upgraded to this lens after going through 2 kit lenses and a 17-85 IS, all of the previous lenses were horrible maybe i'm just picky who knows. This lens performed great once i got my body replaced for having poor focusing accuracy. Wonderfully sharp wide open a real stunner. The size is great and balances really well with the 20D this is my basic walkaround lens currently since i only have a 50 1.8 as well. Weathersealing is great with a B+W Filter.

I highly recommend this lens, much more affordable than the 16-35 and i hear it performs better as well. Can't wait to try it on a FF Camera possibly a cheap film body.


Jul 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ranmandx to your Buddy List  
c4change
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 756
Review Date: Jul 25, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: quality built, focal range, sharpness
Cons:
distortion

It's a great lens. My only complaint is the visible distortion. Not for architecture shots.

Jul 25, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add c4change to your Buddy List  
Mr645
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1303
Review Date: Jul 23, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Well built, small, sharp, smooth, weather sealed.
Cons:
F4 is a bit slow, massive lens hood does not fit in the camera bag. Zooming ring hard to reach when flash bracket is in use. All really minor issues

After owning various wide zooms for the EOS system I ended up with the 17-40. I use it on full frame and 1.3x DSLR's. It is very sharp, even wide open. If you stop down just a 1/2 or full stop, this "L" zoom will give many primes a run for there money. Flare is very well controlled, which solved a problem with the Sigma 15-30 that it replaced. Both the Sigma and this Canon can deliver excellent sharpness in the center but the Canon L holds up much better in the corners. Distortion in the corners are seen in both lenses, as well as the 16-35 F2.8 Canon. I choose to stick with the F4 L instead of the faster, more expensive 16-35 because I find that when F4 is not fast enough, F2.8 also is not. I end up going to a 1.8 or faster lens. Overall the 17-40 F4 L is a bargain.

Jul 23, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Mr645 to your Buddy List  
nguyen430
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Review Date: Jul 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Solid built
Cons:
only F4

This is a nice landscape lens.
It won't be the lens of choice when taking people photos.
The skin never looks good.
You need to do f5.6 to get a sharp image which may not give you a nice picture when using flash






Jul 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add nguyen430 to your Buddy List  
thedigitalbean
Online
Image Upload: On



Registered: Jun 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6247
Review Date: Jul 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent build, internal zoom, sharp, good color and contrast, light, close focussing
Cons:
f/4 is a little on the slow side

Excellent value. I love the fact that I have to do very little processing with the pictures I get from this lens. It is on my 300D 90% of the time and is a joy to use.

I was also surprised by how well it can do close-ups due to its close focussing distance.


Jul 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add thedigitalbean to your Buddy List  
CorruptedSanit
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 1428
Review Date: Jul 12, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $740.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: feels very solid, not too heavy, lovely feature of being able to manually focus after it autofocuses without having to switch to MF. comes with a hood and nice suede/leather case
Cons:
none

I think it is wonderful even on a 20D (1.6x crop), the all time focus is wonderful too. I enjoy that I can focus it a little more after it autofocuses without having to switch it to MF.

I cant wait to use this on a full frame camera. Since i am more of a Landscape photog, the 1.6 crop is a killer.


Jul 12, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add CorruptedSanit to your Buddy List  
tritone
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7
Review Date: Jul 5, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Nice color, reasonably sharp, perfect range for 1.6x crop. Lens improves stopped down to f/8 or so. Built like a tank.
Cons:
None really...

I'm really beginning to love this lens. It is my primary lens on my 20D

Jul 5, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tritone to your Buddy List  
jcmedeiros
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 760
Review Date: Jul 3, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $640.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Best value in the L series
Cons:
None.

I purchased this when i bought my 10D as i was a great match for it with the 1.6 multiplier; providing 27-64mm effective focal length. On my 1DMII (1.3x) its a fantastic wide angle lens. The colors and hsrapness are just beautiful. There's not a better value in the L series.

Jul 3, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jcmedeiros to your Buddy List  




Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
515 995378 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $670.44
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_


Page:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next