 |
|
|
John Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1265
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, sheaper , good focus, good lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Not great in low light, pin cushion.
|
|
|
Had this lens for 3 months before selling and buying a 16-35 which I really prefer because of the greater aperture opening and the wider range; at a multiplying factor of 1.6, the 17-40 is less wide by almost 2 mm than the 16-35.
I had problems in low light situation where the 17-40 is too slow for me.
otherwise it is a good lens.
|
|
 Dec 14, 2004
|
|
jimnms
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $640.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Perfect lens for a 1.6 crop DSLR, sharp, quiet, good build quality, good price for an L lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing to complain about yet.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens from jgbryan021900 in the Buy/Sell Forums here.
Until now I've mainly shot telephoto. I had purchased a Sigma 18-50 for the occasional wide shot. I found myself using the 18-50 more often, so I dicided to take the plunge and get the 17-40 f/4L.
This has become my favorite lens so far, and I've found myself shooting wide shots more often now. When testing it the day it arrived, I tried hard to get it to flare, but I could only manage one shot with a tiny little flare that's hardly noticable. I've only noticed a slight bit of CA on extreme shots in the corner.
I took it to an airshow a few weeks after I got it, and I was extremely pleased with the results.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2004
|
|
MichaD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, weight, af, construction
|
|
Cons:
|
massive barrel distortion on the wide end
|
|
|
Very useful walkaround lens for a 1.6x crop camera (get the EW-83DII hood if you got an APS sized sensor). Great sharpness and contrast. AF does it's job great. It's not a f/2.8, no, but you get what you pay for. Haven't found any CA worthy of mentioning on my copy. Flare is amazingly low for such a wide glass. Only real downside is the hefty distortion on the wide end. Software correction becomes a must when having straight lines in the frame.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2004
|
|
corgiwcn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent resolution and acutance. Great color rendition. Accurate autofocus system.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some chromatic abberation on the edges when shot wide open at the wide end.
|
|
|
This is a so-called "no excuse" lens like my 85mm f/1.8. The USM system focuses accurately and silently; the high resolution and acutance in the optics produce very sharp images; the color rendition reflects what an "L" lens should be. From now on, any failure to produce good wide angle photos is entirely my own.
My copy is sharp wide open through the focal range. Two stops down to f/8, the lens manages to push my 1.6x crop 300D to its limit. From 30cm to infinity, it consistently and instantly locks the focus points without hesitation, unlike my previously owned EF 24mm f/2.8. Optically, this lens is as good as the primes in the focal range except for the distortion on the wide side.
It also controls flare quite nicely when used without protective UV filters. When used in-doors with flash, be sure to take off the UV filter before shooting. If it weren't for the weather sealing, I would have gotten rid of the UV filter altogether.m Also be sure to use the lens hood EW-83D II (for 24mm 1.4L) when mounting it on 1.6x DSLRs.
The only flaw I can think of is the chromatic abberation introduced on the edges when shot wide at F/4 against very contrasty objects using DSLR.
Before using this lens, I thought shooting wide angle to be very difficult because I constantly struggled with autofocus systems. Now, with the experiences of my short telephoto 85mm f/1.8 and this one, I am sold on the importance of advanced focus systems like Canon's USM.
Get this lens if you can afford it. Don't buy it if you don't want to get addicted to L lenses.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2004
|
|
Hrow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5329
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $659.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Just about everything.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Certainly one of the bargins of the Canon line. This lens is sharp, the images have good color and contrast and the build quality is superb. It just feels "right" on the camera. There is no other way to describe it. I love this lens.
No, it is not a 2.8, but then again I didn't pay for a 2.8 either. For my shooting, the extra stop wasn't worth the extra cost of the 16-35 2.8L. That 17mm may not be wide enough for some on a 1.6x camera should not be viewed as a negative against this lens. It is what it is and does what it does superbly.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2004
|
|
tekgik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2003
Location: Philippines
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $705.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent build quality, color rendition, focus speed, very silent motor, weight, sharp at 40mm
|
|
Cons:
|
marginal difference on photo quality from my efs 18-55
|
|
|
My first "L" lens. Superb build quality. I got the sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm, and i must say USM is a lot quite.
Surprisingly on its wide end the sharpness of my canon efs 18-55 was on par with this lens. Oh yeah i agree with other reviewers about the CA, there is but not as bad as the plastic kit lens.
I think im gonna keep it because of its other advantages!
yup yup! annoying lens hood =(
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2004
|
|
winty
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, very 3d images. Well made. Balances well on the camera. Able to focus to 28cm, which seems very close to me. Good range on a 1.6x body. Quick focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Ultra-conspicuous with the hood on, slightly conspicuous without the hood on.
|
|
|
All I can say is that this lens seems to be an ideal partner for the 20d. Focusing is incredibly fast and accurate. The f4 can be ameliorated by the 20d's excellent high iso performance. It seems to work much better with the camera than my other lenses (50mm 1.4 doesn't autofocus as well, 24-85mm isn't as sharp). Even comparing to my prime lens, I am truly amazed by the 3d-ness of the images the 17-40L produces. I don't think I will ever regret this purchase.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2004
|
|
Hardtail
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build strength, flexability, weight and it even looks the goods. Results are sharp, and focussing is faster then Superman out of a phone box.
|
|
Cons:
|
Haven't found any yet. I may develop some reservations about the hood though, time will tell.
|
|
|
I've only just bought this lens, but so far I'm extremely happy with its performance. It just may supercede my Canon 28-70 f2.8 L as a general "walk around" lens. If not, it will definitley share that distinction.
For me, f4 is adequate for my needs in this focal range, so I can't see me ever needing to crack the piggy bank upgrading.to 16-35 f2.8.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2004
|
|
phagan
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $665.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, build quality, image quality, flexibility.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Like others have said this is a great lens. I don't agree with people saying this is not a super wide lens simply because they put it on a 1.6x crop body. That's a limitation of the body not the lens because once you put 17mm on a 1x factor it is super wide. I use a 1.6x DRebel and I knew from the purchase it wouldn't offer a 17mm view. No big deal though because what other choices does one have for WA? I looked at everything from a Sigma 15mm fisheye to the Tamron and Sigma zoom offerings. No comparison in quality and future compatability. Buy the Canon and consider it money well spent. Everybody with a 1.6x body can grow with this lens because we will soon have 1x budget priced digital bodies and until then we can enjoy the heck out of this lens. What use, other than as a novelty, would a Sigma 15mm fisheye be on a 1.0x? I couldn't find one so I got this lens. I highly recommend 17th Street Photo, great service and price. I don't consider the 16-35 a competitor due to price. Image quality is very close and I can't imagine anyone being able to really tell the difference in a real life situation (unlike most tests which press every lens to their very edge of performance). Enjoy this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2004
|
|
eeprete
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3733
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
• Although not superwide, quite sufficient for landscape work.
• Great sharpness, color and contrast.
• L 77mm ring size.
• Good price.
• Best walkaround lens for landscapes on a 1.6 crop factor body.
• Very good quality control.
• Solid build.
|
|
Cons:
|
• Lack of a 2.8 aperture.
|
|
|
99 times out of 100, you will probably get a sharp copy of this lens. For a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop factor body, it can't be beat. Yes, there are more affordable alteratives from Sigma and Tamron, but all too often you have to worry about QC issues. If you value your time and just want to start off with a sharp lens, just do yourself a favor and pick this up.
After picking this up, I don't think I took this lens off for three weeks. Although it's not a 2.8 lens, with the high ISO performance of the 20D, this makes a perfect companion. It's also roughly half the price of the 16-35/2.8 lens.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2004
|
|
kodos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp, good contrast, and color. Lightweight, built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
Relatively slow compared to f2.8 lenses in this category. Insanely shaped lens hood. Noticeable distortion at wideangle end of the zoom.
|
|
|
I got this lens yesterday, and WOW! have I been blown away by it. I'm even more impressed than with the 70-200f4L. I am not a wideangle shooter by any means, but the ability to take shots when in cramped spaces was appealing, and the fact that Thanksgiving (US) is around the corner meant lots of group family photos in tight spaces which this lens is great for. On my 20D it's a 1.6x crop factor so I can't really evaluate the edges on a full-frame camera, but for what I use it for, it's been awesome!
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2004
|
|
gmcfly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2003
Location: Brazil
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, price, fast and silent focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood
|
|
|
Excelent lens. Not my favorite just because I like primes more.
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2004
|
|
shock
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $635.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Clarity - Contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
None as of yet :)
|
|
|
I just got this lense yesterday. Granted - I am a "beginner" but, I've been working as a CG lighter for awhile and I've done enough photography to be able to tell when something looks good or not. This one is excellent!!!!
This is my first Canon EF lense and I guarantee that it won't be the last!!!
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2004
|
|
mudlake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1524
|
|
Review Date: Oct 22, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
High quality build, full time manual focus, quick focusing, very nice contrast and sharpness. Smooth in every way.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 maximum aperture. I would like f2.8 but I don't want to pay for it!
|
|
|
I purchased this lens mainly to use as a landscape lens on my 10D. The widest lens I have owned was the Canon 24/2.8. Seeing 17mm on my 10D for the first time was exciting! I thought, "why didn't I buy this sooner?" I haven't taken it off my camera since.
Everything about this lens is quality. Very sharp at f4 and even better stopped down. It is not heavy or obtrusive and fits nicely on the 10D. The contrast is fantastic. Not as good as the 85/1.8 or 135/2, but very good for a wide angle lens.
I think I've found my new favorite lens! Highly recommended. I can't wait to use it on a full frame camera.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2004
|
|
jthai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $899.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, sharp at F8, F11, F16. Nice contract. Extreme Fast focus.
Constant F4, Wide angle, Quiet USM, Good quality build. Weather seal.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulky hood. It is not big deal. Hood 83D II is right one for 1.6 crop.
The 83E is made for film not for digital, extra cost for proper hood.
|
|
|
I love this lens, after upgrade from kit lens 18-55mm F3.5-5.6. I have learned on image analysis. This lens is extreme fast focus compare to my 70-200 F4L. Both "L" contract and color also sharpness are close.
I can afford to get F2.8 but for indoor shot, using flash with slow the F/stop to optimize the lens sharpness. No problem with this, I am still learning curve on using F4 for night shot. Of course tripod is needed for indoor picture. My 550EX flash is capable to fill large area.
Final word for this lens is build like tank.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2004
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
light, compact, sharp, good contrast control.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4....would have loved a 2.8 in this quality.
|
|
|
Ive had the 17-35f2.8L and the 16-35f2.8L....at the wide end of things, this lens is leader by head and shoulders. Even stopped down the other two were close or the same but never better than this lens. I also found the glare much better controlloed on this lens. Excellent value for money.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952668
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
