 |
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7060
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light, inexpensive L zoom, wide on FF, pretty decently wide on smaller frame censors. The optical qulity is just superb.
|
|
Cons:
|
none that I have found.
|
|
|
I raded to get this lens to do some portrait and landscape work. I was using a 28 f2.8 and the rebel kit lens for this type of work, both of which were ok, but now with the 17-40L, my work is so much better. I added this with my 50 1.8 and 70-200, what a nice complikent it is to them.
|
|
 Mar 16, 2005
|
|
Tom C
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely smooth mechanical feeling. Very fast auotofocus performance. The color quality and sharpness excellent.
|
|
Cons:
|
The furnished lens hood is huge.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens last week in the suburban Chicago area. I am totally satisfied with the quality and performance of this lens. Any other comments would be repetative.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2005
|
|
Incomplete Pet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 522
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, decent build quality, not too expensive, sharp images
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't focus hugely quickly
|
|
|
Bought this soon after shooting the Track Cycling World Cup, really needed a wide lens for when I return to the velodrome. It's a great lens, lightweight so you don't notice it as much as the weighty 16-35mm f2.8 L, it also produces sharp colourful images for a half decent price, what more could you want?!
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2005
|
|
Heechee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 383
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent focal length range on a film body, excellent build quality, excellent image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
No 2.8 aperture, focal length range on a 20D is somewhat boring
|
|
|
I usually walk around with the 17-40L on a film body. If I had a 20D, I'd need the EF-S 10-22 instead.
The build quality is so good, I just need to FEEL the lens once in a while.. :-) The build quality of EF-S 10-22 is worse.
I get excellent 20 megapixel scans of the slides with my Nikon V ED scanner, but to get full shapness for that requires a fast enough shutter speed or a tripod, also probably stopping down a stop at least (not 100% sure on stopping down).
The len is just a bit large, not comfortable unless you have a battery grip attached to the body (EOS 33V or 20D), but if you have it's not that large.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2005
|
|
JCMILLAR
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2005
Location: Thailand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My first " L " Glass. I am very impressed. I bought this lens to replace the kit lens that came with my 20D. I am still learning to use it properly.Images at F8 are very sharp. Like someone said " The start of
" L " fever. The 16-35 must be one hell of a lens judging from the reviews. I think this lens is Super.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
Thank you all for your very helpfull information.
You have guided me to this lens and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 SP AF DI.
This 17-40 f4 is my first " L " glass. The quality of the images are very impressive. What I have learned from these reviews is that the 16-35 f2.8 must be a great lens. As someone here wrote this lens is the start of the " L " glass quality fever.
My next plunge will be the EF70-200 F2.8, I am still pondering the IS feature is it worth the extra money ?
The experience gained first hand with the quality of the 17-40 has turned me away from the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.
" L " GLASS FEVER.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2005
|
|
Gil H
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $659.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lighter than my 24-70 brick, sharp , Great all lens to travel with, great pictures.
|
|
Cons:
|
40mm is not enough and I need to take another lens to compensate for it
f4 is too dark for indoor use without a flash, but I use a flash so I dont care
|
|
|
After buying my 24-70 lens I found out that my hands hurt from the weight, and the 17-40 was the only alternative without sacrificing quality.
I love the quality of indoor flash photograpy, outdoors I need to carry another lens to complement the telophoto range.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2005
|
|
dmpimaging
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $684.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, grat for travel and everyday use. Actually sold my 16-35 after using this lens. The 16-35 was just too heavy and would squeak. This lens rocks!
|
|
Cons:
|
none that I can think of. Would like it a little faster but then it would be heavier.
|
|
|
Just another positive review for this great canon offering. This is the one lens which always goes on vacation.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2005
|
|
DEvianT
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp
Beautiful colour and contrast
Build Quality
Fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is ludicrous size
|
|
|
Can't fault this lens. The image quality is superb. The field of view is ideal on a cropped DSLR like a 20D and it's fast quiet and built to last. Has weather seal and full time manual focus. Cannot recommend this lens enough.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
ijshusky
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: Japan
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
The greatest wide angle lens ever!!
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2005
|
|
CTYankee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5308
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, f4, great color, very smooth, no problems with flare, price
|
|
Cons:
|
could be sharper wide open
|
|
|
A very useful zoom for several types of shooting. If you need something hin this focal length its a good compromise of price, performance and speed. If you want better quality, then you need to pay for it with some of the other wide L zooms. Otherwise its one of the lenses I'll always hang on to.
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2005
|
|
canfraggle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick USM Autofocus
Good build quality
Good image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive
f/4
|
|
|
Everyone raves about this lens, but I prefer the Tamron 17-35 or the Canon 16-35 f2.8L. The Tamron is better value. If you need absolutely better performance, the 16-35 is the only choice.
f4 is a drag when it comes to low light shooting.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2005
|
|
cladnin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 150
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $640.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, value
|
|
Cons:
|
F4
|
|
|
Great sharp lens (even wide open incredibly sharp). Great L build quality. It's only downside is the F4 maximum.
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 4847
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, great build quality, fast focus, sharp wide open
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood hard to carry, only f4 ( but I knew that buying it :) )
|
|
|
First let me say that I am not much of a wide angle shooter. I bought this for those times I need to go wide. I only miss a faster aperture than f4 .. but you get what you pay for. This lens has sold me on the virtues of "L" lenses. It is great wide open, both sharp and contrasty. The pictures have a snap and clarity to them that make me feel good. I don't use the hood very much as I like to pack light and the darn thing is impossible to pack in my bag without taking up way too much space. A great lens at a decent price. The start of "L" fever I'm afraid!
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
CurtPick
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3260
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, compact, easy to carry around, sharp images with wonderful contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is a beast, When using onboard flash you will get shadow from lens even without the hood
|
|
|
I am rating this using the Canon 10D.
First time I used the lens I was in awe at the sharpness, even at full zoom, corners were very sharp. Its light, compact, a great WA for the 1.6 crop on the 10D. If there was anything bad to say about the lens is the F4. Low light is tough to get a great shot. But for outdoor and well lit subjects this is the lens to get ! Well done Canon !
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
Dave Baker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 7412
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful images. Beautiful build. Beautiful lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
I find it (almost) useless on a 1D.
|
|
|
A bargain. I bought it a week or so after they became available and it stayed (almost) glued to my D60. After switching to a 1D I used it less and less and eventually replaced it with a 24-70, but for the 1.6x sensor this lens simply cannot be beaten.
Buy the other lens hood (designed for 24/1.4), though. The one that comes with is a dinner plate.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2005
|
|
fletcho
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Does what it should do.
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't have a focal length of 1000mm...
|
|
|
Help me understand....
The majority of cons about this lens are because it's an f4. The lens description before you buy the product says f/4L.
Help me understand...
I sure wish this lens had a focal length of 1000mm. Someone should complain to Canon.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955715
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
