 |
|
|
GEvo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 14, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at F/4.5, very sharp after that; accurate and fast focus in low light with 300D; constant aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing really!
|
|
|
When I first bought this lens, I never thought that L lens was that good. It was not often used unless taking group shots. Once, during a dark performance, I am amazed that the 17-40 can still focus accurately with Canon cheapest dSLR, together with 550EX AF assist though. It is so sharp, fast focusing and all these come packaged as the 2nd cheapest L!! What a deal!
|
|
 Jan 14, 2005
|
|
mediahound
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 394
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality seems good. Performance when stopped down is good.
It's a popular lens so you will probably be able to sell it for a good
price when you decide you really want the 16-35.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't go wider than f4, a real compromise. Not that sharp. Pricey in that respect.
|
|
|
This is a good lens but consider that it's really an overpriced cheap lens
with the L badging. I feel this lens under performs most other L lenses and
I owned it for a while before selling it for the 16-35 f2.8.
Here's my opinion:
All lenses perform well at higher f stops, that's easy. It's the wide
apertures that really tell you how good a lens is. But this one can't even
go wider than f4 so it's quite limited. The fact that it isn't any faster
than f4 means that it is not good for low light situations. Say you are
street shooting outside, then you walk into a dimly light restaurant.
You'll have to either change lenses or put on a flash. Sure you could up
the ISO setting on your camera but that's a cop out. With a faster lens,
you would have that much greater flexibilty and still be able to up the ISO
and shoot in even darker situations.
When trying to photograph in dim light (and with only f4, it doesn't even
need to be that dim to start giving you problems), this lens will give you
blurry pictures where an f2.8 lens or faster lens will not. Why? Because at
f4, you will require a much slower shutter speed, which unless you are
using a tripod, will manifest as camera shake/blur. Whereas with the f2.8
lens you won't need a tripod in that same light.
Each f-stop is double the amount of light. Because an f2.8 lens is a stop
faster than an f4 lens, it lets in a significant amount more light (double
the amount actually). Huge difference.
The 17-40 also won't allow you good shots with beautiful out of focus areas
(bokeh). The f4 simply doesn't yield shallow enough depth of field. So for
what you get, it's overpriced.
I much prefer the 16-35 f2.8 even though it's double the cost. The 16-35 is
the pro version of this lens, whereas the 17-40 is the consumer one. If the
point is being ready to photograph almost all situations, than a limited f4
lens isn't really the way to go. I believe this lens is a real compromise
lens.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2005
|
|
Nimra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: Jan 11, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $699.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid, fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Not the best contrast, unsharp in the corners...
|
|
|
I expected a better picture quality, so - don't get me wrong, I wasn't really dissapointed, but when I tested the 17-40 @ 24mm against the cheap EF 24mm / 2.8, the differ in sharpness and contrast was too big for L / non L glas.
I'm going to sell the 17-40 and try out the 16-35, maybe this zoom got better overall sharpness....and I keep my primes...
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2005
|
|
Gijs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 4, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 687
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp around about 28mm, even wide open. Good colour. Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Disappointingly soft at the wide end. Some CA in the edges, some barrel distortion. More occurences of flare than I was bargaining for.
|
|
|
I may have gotten myself a bad copy of this lens and if I'm able to get a better copy I'll update this review. However, some reviews I've read elsewhere seem to confirm some of the negative points I've come across.
Basically, I bought this lens for wide angle landscape work. And when tested against my 18-55 kit lens, the wide angle performance of the 17-40L is really disappointing. I couldn't see any improvement in sharpness over the kit lens at the widest focal lengths at all apertures, in the centre and in the corners! CA in the corners is stronger with the L! Barrel distortion is equal.
Of course the L's build quality is a big plus. Weather sealing, the fact that it doesn't extend when zooming and the front element doesn't rotate, FTM focus ... these are nice features. But I expected a much better image quality at the wide end (at around 28mm there is actually a huge improvement) from a lens that's about 7 times the price of the kit lens.
Actually, I don't mind the hood as much as some other people do. One thing to watch out for is that even without the hood the size of the lens can block the light from the internal flash on the camera (I have a 20D). This is no fault of the lens of course, but it's something that a potential buyer that doesn't own an external flash unit may not think of.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2005
|
|
chocomonsters
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very SHARP. Great price to performance ratio. Weather sealed. Light and portable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor COLOR. Limited by f/4
|
|
As you all have read below postings and other reviews, this lens is very SHARP and well constructed. For its price, it is amazing bargain.
So why only 4/5? It really falls short on COLOR. Its color is generally flat. I find myself using this lens less and less over time. I only use it for outdoor landscape during daytime only with it (where its strength of sharpness is minimized).
Limitation of f/4 obviously limits its indoor low light situation (ie, inside museum or church) without flash.
Errrgggghhhh.... Again that color.. Maybe I will use it for very sharp B/W shots only 
Addendum:
yes, it wasn't free. just forgot to put purchased price.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2005
|
|
artguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 103
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $740.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Smooth action and nice size
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 and a bit soft on the wide end
|
|
|
I read all the reviews before I purchased this lens, and it is a very good lens.
However I have returned it because the focus seems rather soft to me on the wide end. Perhaps I had a copy that is not as good as some of the others that people are raving about.
My general guess is that the 16-35L will be sharper on the extreme wide end (at a higher price of course).
Since my favorite film lens for many of my shots was a 24mm, this lens also suffers in that the 17mm wide end is equivalent to only 27.2mm on a 20D.
Since that is the range that I shot in often I think that it accentuated the weakest area of this lens to the point that I'm really not happy with it.
If this doesn't apply to your shooting and you don't need 2.8 then this lens should be excellent for you.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2005
|
|
speedbrakesout
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 255
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $735.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, beautiful colors and great contrast. Great zoom range, even on a 1.6 dSLR.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulky hood.
|
|
|
This lens is great! This is what I use 90% of the time as my walk around lens and it provides me wih exceptional images.The colors, sharpness and contrast are perfect. This is an L anyone should have in their photo bag.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2005
|
|
vk2109
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 141
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
constant F4, sharp lens, Excellent build in Quality and light lens
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit expensive,
|
|
|
It's an Amazing Lens. That lens was my first and only lens for 4 months when I got my 10D and I got superb result with it.
Used on a tripod, at night, it delivers wonderful and sharp images.
I only wish the range to be greater (like 17-60mm)..but that's OK!
An excellent walk around lens for 1.6crop factor type DSLR user who likes Lanscape shots
PS Wow this is the 100th Review :!!!!
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2005
|
|
mbohunsky
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3668
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great construction, good price. Feels great, like a tank. It's an L lens!!
|
|
Cons:
|
None...I can't give it a 6/5 rating!
|
|
|
I have owned the 17-40L since July of 2004 and I could not tell you of any faults with this excellent lens. It was my first true "pro" lens and I cringed at the almost $700 price tag. After I held the lens in my hand and seeing the other offerings in this range (mainly the Canon 16-35L), I quickly forgot the price!
When I make 16x20 enlargements in my school from my 35mm, people ask me what medium format I'm using! This lens is tack sharp at f/8! It's still sharp wide open.
Also, this is my "walk-around" lens for my 10 and 20D. The USM is very fast and nearly silent even in the quietest settings. I can't hear it focusing in normal environments.
The included hood is outrageously big and most of the time I leave it at home. The flare is very well controlled, I rarelly, if ever, see flare in my pictures even when the sun is present in the picture.
No ghosting was ever present when I shot long night exposures with my 35mm. Even with street lamps and car headlights present, there is no ghosting! Exceptionall for a zoom. It does tend to ghost on my 10D in very low light. One example is shooting a birhtday cake in its own light. Most likelly, CMOS is to blame but I don't mind the ghosting anyway (that's why there's Photoshop).
Overall, an excellent lens that will get you great results with every picture you take. If you don't have this lens for your digital SLR yet, run and get a copy!!
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2005
|
|
njezzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, built quality, size, internal focussing, one of the cheapest L..
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
By having this lens, now I'm no longer having problem using CPL filter as I had before with my EFs 18-55mm. The internal focussing system really helps me in photographing landscape.
It is also sharp !.. Now I even shoot my model with this lens..This is one example: http://www.gallery1905.com/details.php?image_id=1052
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2005
|
|
nighthawk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic outer build quality, fast usm action and that L factor
|
|
Cons:
|
Mine won't let me manual focus!!! which is a bit of a bind :(
|
|
|
I have owned this lens for under a week and have taken around 70 shots with it.
On auto focus it's fine on my Canon 300D and it really helps balance the camera (mines fitted with the battery grip), but for me and this particular copy it all changes when you switch to Manual focus.
It just won't stop !!!! it's almost like it's possessed.
I half depress the shutter release and the USM does it's job and snaps the image in to what it thinks is perfect focus. In reality, it never manages to get it.
This copy is going back to the retailer tomorrow for exchnge.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2005
|
|
Tony Howell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
price, quiet AF, image quality, low flare
|
|
Cons:
|
edges not sharp wide open at 17mm (but this was expected!)
|
|
|
I love shooting at 17mm as I'm in love with big, open skies, so this lens is ideal. The centre of the image is very sharp all through the zoom range, and the slightly slow f4 is no problem - just use a tripod! I wholeheartedly recommend this lens, and it'll be on my camera for many years to come. I suggest f8 for sharpest results.
Has anyone used this lens with good quality Graduated filters or Lee Filters? I'd like to know what you think before I buy some - they're steep.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2005
|
|
alfred08
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quiet and cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Not great in low light, range
|
|
|
Had this lens for 3 months before selling and buying a 17-85 IS. I prefer the range and IS is wonderfull...but it's less sharp !
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2004
|
|
Doug Vann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness and nice zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
It would be nice if it was f2.8 instead of f4.0 but not a real big issue for me as I also have a 550EX flash......
|
|
|
Nice sharp shots with this lens. 17-40 range works very well for most shots and this is the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time. I have a couple of 11 x 17 pictures in my office from this camera and the sharpness is amazing. Bargain price for this lens. Definitely recommended.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2004
|
|
discreet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2004
Location: China
Posts: 1148
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Build Quality, Perfect Focal Range for a 1.6x body. Relatively Cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow F4.0 aperature but the 16-35/2.8 cost way more
|
|
|
The 17-40L has to be the best performance/price in the canon line-up.
If you are using a 1.6x Camera and take the following kind of photos, this len is perfect:
General "sight-seeing":
On my drebel, this is a 27-65mm lens. Which is perfect for general photography I do when I go travelling. It is wide enough to take most things and the zoom range generally capture 80% of what i shot.
Archicture:
this is one of the more decent 17mm option you have in the canon line-up
Indoor:
Though it is kinda of slow, the wide angle makes up for it. most of the time, I push the ISO or use flash
Portraits:
Together with the 85/1.8, these 2 lens cover all my portraits needs. When I need a half or full body shot, I use the 17-40L as I prefer to be close to the model to communicate with her/him. I sometime use the 17mm end to take "fish-eye" head shots for effect. The close focusing distance allows that. The 85/1.8 is used solely for head shots in my book
Being an L lens, the built quality is amazing and the AF is fast and accurate. It commands confidence in the user and I feel very confident using the lens.
Eventhough it is slow at 4.0, being an L, I dare to use it wide open and it gives me great results over my 18-55
Overall: A*
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2004
|
|
drfrank
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $679.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lens is extremely sharp, images are 3D like in appearance, USM is very quiet, auto focus is fast and accurate, construction — built like a tank, on my 300D the balance is very good, colors and contrast are excellent.
|
|
Cons:
|
None to date.
|
|
|
This is my second L series lens. I purchased the 70-200 F4L and based on the excellent performance of it decided to go for the 17-40 F4L. I can say it was a good investment. These two lenses are the best that I currently own. I find the 17-40 F4L to be pin sharp from 17mm to 40mm.
The 17-40 F4L has replaced my 28-135 IS for 90% of my walk-around shooting. Except for low light conditions where the IS can make a difference, the 17-40 F4L is my lens of choice.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
953080
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
