 |
|
|
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
|
|
c4change
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 497
|
|
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
|
|
Mr645
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1288
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
thedigitalbean
Online
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6122
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
jcmedeiros
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 744
|
|
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
|
|
IreShot
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Robust, quality construction, light weight on camera, very useful for people/outdoor/landscape shots
|
|
Cons:
|
f4, with DSLR in particular (see text); best to get a filter to prevent dust getting sucked into lens by zoom movement
|
|
|
Initially this lens suggests an odd concept: a professionally constructed lens housing consumer specified optics. But an easy-to-sell product as far as Canon is concerned!
It performs reasonably well with a little corner softness now and again that I can usually bluff my way around in software. It would never be an issue in real-world prints anyway. Depending on your subject, pincushion and barrel distortion can be a little irritating if there’s a lot of straight lines about, but nothing like enough of a problem to put me off this lens. For people and the outdoors it’s a real winner if you can't afford better.
Apart from the glass, this lens is reassuringly robust and will resist dust and a little water like any pro lens should. Another plus for outdoor work.
The only potential drawback is the limitations of the f4 aperture. But really, it depends on your approach. I’ll be shooting mostly film so I’ve no worries about DSLR noise and weaker colours at higher ISO speeds – I can shoot wide open and wide-angle, and routinely use 800 film for normally illuminated indoor work. I’d be doing that anyway, even with a 28-70mm f2.8, and I'd rarely be getting as open as f2.8. Fuji’s 800 film is very impressive. This is a very useful, walkabout people lens with the appropriate ISO.
I’ve found that outdoors using slightly overexposed high quality ISO 100 film it’s best to have a tripod handy if you want to stop the lens down mid-way or just be absolutely sure about preventing camera-shake if you're after bigger prints.
It’s not worth the price Canon puts on it (what Canon product is!), but I got it for less and it was partly a gift, so it was too good to pass by.
There’s no such a thing as a ten out of ten lens (sensors and film would never pass on the performance) but I’m impressed by the 17-40 f4. However, IMO, until DSLRs advance a good bit more, I’d rather shoot film than digital with it.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2005
|
|
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb build quality - gasket seal on rear mount, solid controls and no front element wobble! I love the fact that it has internal focussing and internal zooming and the fact that it has full time manual (FTM) facility. Good focal range. The optical quality is very good and can be used with confidence with a APS sized sensor digital camera (e.g. EOS 10D, 20S, 300D, etc...). Best aperture f5.6 but f4.0 is quite usable too.
|
|
Cons:
|
None at all - if only all lenses were like this...
|
|
|
Highly recommended. I use this lens on an EOS 10D and use it as my standard lens. Ok, it's a bit slow (f4.0) but it can be hand held with ease and the good full aperture performance gives flexibilty. Distortion acceptable on EOS 10D and very low CA. 17mm gives about 28mm equivalent (35mm camera) but actually looks wider in use. Lovely to use with excellent focussing.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2005
|
|
klockworks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I shoot alot of whitewater rafting and snowboarding/skiing and this lens (new 3 weeks ago has opened my eyes to the 20Ds strengths. Awesom sharpness and clarity. Excelleent in all but the lowest light and the field of view is great on the 20D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Frickin huge and expensive circular polarizing filter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2005
|
|
Dajon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great optics!!!!! excellent balance on my cameras and fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Standard lens hood is to big for my camera bag
|
|
|
I love this lens! wonderful and sharp -i know it has won various awards which is nice but i had to try it myself and see: and wow great optics! its my standard lens on my DSLR. (27-65mm on my 300D) Heres a tip i found on the web: if you are using this lens on a DSLR with 1.6 sensor (10d,20d rebel etc..) you can leave the regular lens hood at home and buy a EW-83DII! this lens hood is not as wide (its made for the EF24f1.4L) -it works great!
high praise for this lens and the price is right too!
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2005
|
|
LostPatrol
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide enough for a DSLR, fast and silent A/F very sharp from f4.5 down constant aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have tried but would have to be realty picky to find any. IO guess the hood is a bit inconvenient.
|
|
|
I have used this lens for 18 months, ok I could moan about it only being f4 and not enough range but I knew that when I bought it. So there is little point in moaning about what it isn’t.
Really this is an excellent lens for the price, you can hand hold as slow as 1/15 if you are careful, IMO one of the best lenses in the Canon range. Shame is isn’t a bit longer but there is the 24-85mm f2.8L if you can afford it.
The build quality is excellent and can take some knocks, it has!
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2005
|
|
imeod
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $630.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Build, Non-Rotating Front Element, Great Image Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Only f4, Huge Lens hood, Limited Focal Range
|
|
|
A nice lens that takes great pictures, but I had to sell mine; I traded it for the 17-85mm IS.
I liked the stronger build of the 17-40mm and the fact that the lens is built super tough, but the loss of light with a f4 lens was a major draw back. The size, weight, and huge lens hood didn't help either.
I chose the 17-85mm for the extended focal range and image stabilization. The lens has a telescoping zoom and isn't built a tough, but it is a much better everyday lens.
$629 was to much for a limited focal range and f-stop of only 4. Someday I will buy the 16-35mm and have the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
May 30, 2005
|
|
jph1
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 946
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality. Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as some primes. Speed.
|
|
|
I shoot mostly wide angle. I bought this lens when I was shooting film. I've had some strong wides over the years. I wouldn't say this is the outright winner in sharpness. But it is too close to make me want to go for the alternatives. Example: Just got a Nikon 20mm f/3.5 with Canon adapter. Tested it against the 17-40. The 20mm prime (the version that came out after the f/4-Galen Rowell lens), one of my favorites in my Nikon system. Not that much difference at 20mm. I was shocked. This affordable L can hold its own against a legend? Well...it's too close to call. I would have to put more effort into it. Sure, I wish it was faster. But for the price? I'm shooting full frame and can not think of anything that would work better for landscapes.
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
|
|
benpaul67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It does everything very professionally. Best lens I've ever owned. For DSLR, this is THE ONE. It just looks really 'right'. Its very very accurate, and sultry even though it's razor sharp and geometrically razor straight. Wide open, 17mm through 40mm, I cant find a fault with it on my 1.6 dslr.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very slight purple fringing, but its controlled and subdued, kept on a very short choke chain, best I've ever seen yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 29, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
953143
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
