 |
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 304
|
|
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
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 304
|
|
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
|
|
clsward
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Quick AF, Compared to previous non L seies. Built like a tank (A very solid one at that). Pin sharp at 40mm. Great balance on 10D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Now I can't go back to cheaper lenses.
|
|
|
I've come from using a 28-135 mm IS lens and some really horrible Sigma 70-200mm APO thing.
I've splahed out and gone for the 70-200mm F4 L, and this lens. I can safely say these L seies lenses are no better than my old ones. ha ha ha. Also the sky is yellow and I live on the planet Zog.
Both lenses are stunning. The 17-40mm is razor sharp at 40mm and fantastic across the range. Like other reviewers have agreed this makes an ideal walkabout lens. The contrast is unreal, and colours (colors) fantastic.
...and heres a stange thing - I like the hood, I SAID, I like the hood. It was shipped with the EW-83E so I don't know if they've changed it recently.
The guys that have mentioned barrel distortion must have a faulty lens cos this one dosen't suffer from it at all. Plus this has been shown in some reviews to be sharper than the 16-35mm at the 25mm plus range.
Just get one, If I was a female lens I'd want it's babies.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2004
|
|
bankroll
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 862
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, IQ, cost, focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood
|
|
I've had this lens for about 7 months now so I think I've used it enough to comment on it. First off, it's definitely an L lens  Build/feel/optics/etc. are all top notch; it feels great on the camera.
With a cropped sensor it gives a great focal length for landscapes/group shots/walk around lens. Other than the hood (which has been discussed plently) there isn't really anything bad to say about this lens. Personally I use it for landscapes and indoor events (with flash on bracket with lumiquest difusser) and it never disappoints.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2004
|
|
ig2003
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 19, 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wieght, Sharp, Contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood
|
|
|
My workaround lens for 20D camera.
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2004
|
|
smashedpumpkin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,399.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Build quality, Fast AF, Weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood, CA and sharpness in the corners
|
|
|
I use this lens with my Canon 10D and I'm somewhat satisfied with it - it's a good lens for that price, but it has too much CA and is not that sharp in the corners.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2004
|
|
Hans Bertrams
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 359
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $735.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, build, weather/dust sealing en lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
The hood
|
|
|
This lens is fantastic, sharp, fast focus and very well build.
The price is also great for an L-lens.
Great for landscapes and interieurphotography.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2004
|
|
go4it
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Sep 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
|
Review Date: Sep 8, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality. Lightning-fast AF! Overall performance: It's a Canon "L" lens alright! Dare I say it - it's as good or better than Leica-R glass. It's SPECTACULAR!
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish it was a stop faster ... BUT THAT GAWD-AWFUL LENS HOOD!!! 1, It's flimsy and a little hard to attach and 2, If the red-striped Canon "L" lenses don't attract enough attention on their own, this lens hood does it - in spades!
|
|
|
With the 1.6 factor on affordable Canon digi-cam bodies, this lens is - in reality - a SUPERB +/- 28-65mm f/4.0 zoom. And, boy-oh-boy, WHAT a 28-to-65 it is!!!! Better than any of the reviews I've read. Better than any words from salespeople or other users. Has to be put thru the paces to be appreciated. Some have cited slight barrel distortion. Not mine. I shot some test grids and it was dead-solid perfect at 4 points within the total zoom range. Camera (10D) with the BG-ED3 grip and this lens is a tad heavy but PERFECTLY balanced. Killer images! Contrast and overall sharpness is nothing short of spectacular. Wide open, just "soft" enough to throw the background wickedly out of focus - and the subjects LEAP out of the captured image ... almost 3D-ish like. Best "zoom" lens I've ever shot with (on a digi-cam, that is. My Leica-M Summiluxes still top the charts).
|
|
|
Sep 8, 2004
|
|
Kathryn Farrar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1926
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
comparatively light weight, wide angle zoom, L glass (you gotta love that red stripe), reasonable price, common 77mm ring size, solid professional feel (i can just sit and turn that zoom ring back and forth all day!)
|
|
Cons:
|
i sometimes wish the zoom extended to 70mm... but then it'd be heavier and more expensive, so nevermind.
|
|
|
this is my everyday, everywhere, everything lens. i use it on my 10D and i really feel that i have no need for any other lens. it's incredibly sharp, and it's light weight compared to some of its other canon competitor lenses.
i have had excellent results using it for landscapes - and boy oh boy, if you like hyperfocal images, you can't beat this lens. you can get right up on a foreground detail and still get a fabulous wide angle background behind it, even with the 1.6x multiplier. i've also taken outstanding closeups with it.
basically, this lens does everything, and if you have no need or desire for telephoto, this is the lens for you. BUY IT! it's awesome!
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2004
|
|
Antje
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 6156
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good contrast and neutral colour rendition, good built quality, weather sealing, small and light, price, USM
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood, relatively slow (f4), distortion (minor point to me)
|
|
I bought this lens because I needed something smaller and lighter than my Sigma 15-30 to take it on holidays, and I felt the need for some more mm at the long end. The extra 10mm at the long end made me skip taking the 50/1.8 with me all the time, something that was impossible when using the Sigma 15-30 because I really missed a standard lens or even a slight tele. The Canon 17-40 is a better compromise as an all-around lens than the 15-30.
The Canon offers a good, neutral colour rendition. As I actually liked the warm rendition the Sigma has, this is a minor point for me, but it may be important to you people out there so I mention it.  It's sharp of course, I think it's visibly sharper than the Sigma. The quality is excellent as is to be expected from an L lens. I took it to the beach with all the salt water spray and wind and sand with confidence (though I used a protective filter there as recommended). After handling this lens for a few days, you'll feel it doesn't need to be babied.
I bought it as a lens that doesn't take up much space and doesn't weigh much when hiking, and that's what I got. It's excellent as a walkaround lens, much more so than the big and heavy Sigma 15-30. It is slower than primes and also slower than its bigger brother 16-35, but offers a greater range and all of the advantages of being a zoom, of course, and that at a reasonable price. The lens is *much* less prone to flare than the Sigma, but it still is. Another advantage over the Sigma is the filter size, it takes 77mm filters just like my 300/f4. There is quite a lot of distortion at the wide end, but that can be corrected with Panotools.
The letdown is the hood, it's clumsy and not very effective. It gets caught in almost everything, including the bag, and fits poorly in about everything I own. But then, it does the job...
All in all, this is a relatively light, small and reasonably priced lens, sharp and contrasty and built like a tank. A wonderful all-around lens.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2004
|
|
bobbytan
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6559
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very affordable high-quality lens. Silent and quick auto-focus. Good wide-angle coverage, and as a general-purpose lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Flares quite a bit. Large filter size. Relatively slow lens.
|
|
|
I use this lens more than any other lens, or about 90% of the time. The sharpness is comparable to Canon prime lenses, IMO.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2004
|
|
gooch
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 342
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid Build, Sharp, Nice balance on a 10D + BG-ED, Outstanding color saturation. Very good min. focus distance. Shares the best L value (cost/performance) with the 70-200 4 L and the 200 2.8 L.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow lens, it could be a stop faster (but then it would be the 16-35 2.8 and cost almost twice as much so it's not really a con) The only real con is the lens hood. Flimsy and awkward sized (hard to hit in bag) The hood for the 24mm 1.4 L is supposed to fit the 17-40 and work much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2004
|
|
BRob
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 26, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast, colour and sharp.Price
|
|
Cons:
|
The usual stated below, a good lens at the lower end of the L series
|
|
|
Good on my 10D
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2004
|
|
btjohnston
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1082
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharpness ...every thing really
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood.
|
|
|
This is my second L series lens and after buying the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM I thought it would be hard to match the quality of this lens. I'm loving it, the colour, contrast and dof is excellent. There is distortion at the 17mm end but I can live with that.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: Australia
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
good color...high contrast...sharp...good build
|
|
Cons:
|
too much barrel distortion on the 17mm end...that's what we paid for in buying this lens...
|
|
|
all i can say is this lens is over-rated for its true value and performance...it's good, but not good enough for the "L" standard...this is probably good for high-end amateurs and sophisticated snapshooters...definitely NOT FOR THE PRO.
the lens performs good...but the distortion at the 17mm end spoils it all...it's not really useful when shooting horizons, buildings, cityscapes, architecture and other photography work that requires accurate straight lines...the kind of shots that really need the wide angle end of the lens...and to be honest...we did not buy this lens because we need a lens with 40mm with an aperture of f4...it is because we need the 17mm ultrawide angle lens (with of course the convenience of zoom)...
a disappointment for canon...they made the "L" series look cheap...they could have made this lens a really good one have they avoided the distortion or at least minimised it to a level that is not so obvious.
p.s. try to compare it with the sigma 17-35 ex...sigma has done a better job minimising the distortion at the 17mm end...
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: Australia
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
built quality, color, contrast and sharpness ... and sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
focale range? ... HOOD ... zoom ring too close to the camera body
|
|
|
First L lens. I was a bit sceptical about the L craze, but I can say i am not desapointed with the 17-40.
First the lens is rock solid, and very well designed, controls are smooth and everything looks like it could last for ever. My only complaint is the zoom ring which i find a bit too close to the body. It could be easier to have a steady hold if it was a tad further in front of the lense... a detail really. I was surprised to notice that the lens balance very well on a 10D body. i have heard that before and i thought it was quite subjective, but i did have the same feeling. Focusing is very fast, slightly faster han the 24-85 for comparison.
Now, once you have looked at it, look through it and then you realise how good the lens is. It is very sharp. I had a 24-85 before which is not the best in this domain, but really, the 17-40 is sharp from f4 and above. I didnt use any sharpenning in any of the first photo i took to test the lens. the same apply for the color and contrast. If you pin the exposure, and fill your histogram nicely, litle processing is needed.
It would be nice to have a bit more focale range on the long end, which would make this lens really flexible. The hood provided is ridiculously big so it is difficut to even find a place in a bag to fit it. And well, i could complain about the price, but it is a good product which should last for a while so ...
Dan
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955695
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
