 |
|
|
pdx_photoman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $695.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, unobtrusive, good build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I tend to shoot near the middle of the aperture range, so I have not seen evidence of edge softness as reported by a few others. I tend not to use this lens as much on my 5d as I did on my 10d, but when I need a super WA, I get excellent results. The lens hood is not terribly useful, given the wide field it has to cover, but when you need it, it's there.
|
|
 May 10, 2010
|
|
JAlexander
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 567
|
|
Review Date: May 10, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
I picked up a used copy of this here on the forums and have been very happy with my copy. Mine is nice and sharp on my 5d Mark II. The colors might be a bit duller than with some of my other L lenses but easy enough to bump that up in ACR. I'm particularly happy because I haven't found purple/cyan fringing like I had with another WA lens from a brand that shall remain nameless :-) I would like to have had the 16-35 for the bigger aperture but for the price I am very pleased with this lens, especially since I can up the ISO on the 5d Mark II without a lot of "noise" in the photos so I've found the f/4 shots I've taken indoors (without flash) have turned out quite well.
|
|
|
May 10, 2010
|
|
swolfcg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 131
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Colors vibrant. Light weight. Great Walk-around lens range for a crop.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lacks sharpness. Cheap entry level L.
|
|
|
Regardless of it's bargain value of being one of the most affordable entry level Ls', in addition to it's light weight & great walk-around range; I cannot recommend this lens. The lack of sharpness doused any sort love I had for this almost perfect lens.
I tested this lens only on my 40D, so I am not completely convinced that the lens may have been out of tolerance. However, from the many sample photos I've seen, this does not seem to be an isolated event. Die hard Canon and 17-40L lovers may disagree with me; but there it is.
I plan to hold out for a better sealed version of the way overpriced 17-55. In the meanwhile, I will be satisfied with replacing this L with the Tamron 17-50, while still having plenty left over to build up my kit of primes. Zeiss 35/2, Canon 50 f/1.4....and hopefully Canon 85 f/1.8, Zeiss 100/2 & Zeiss 35-70.
|
|
|
May 9, 2010
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
soft, dull colors, slow
|
|
I have owned this lens for a few years. I just sold it yesterday. It is a good lens to start photography because it is cheap. However, I don't think it is an outstanding lens! I tried several copies with the same result.
The bad:
- soft, even stopped down. The best example I have the picture with the bride sitting on the beach getting ready. It is the 10th picture on the flash into page: www.haringphotography.com I put the bride right on the picture and her face is extremely soft. With a better lens this picture would have been outstanding. All the pictures are soft. Compared to cheap lenses the 17-40 is slightly better but not much better.
- dull lifeless colors. I used the colors when I bought it but colors are dull compared to good lenses. Look at the picture where the bride and goorm sign the kotubah: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog/wedding-photography-work/wedding-photos-of-mike-and-nancy-sundy-house-delray-beach-florida/
It explains everything
- slow. I missed a lot of shots because I didn't want to put on the flash and wanted to use natural light. In low light it is pretty slow. If you push up the ISO on the 5D Mark II and you try to soot with the lens the colors are dead.
- because of the f4, there is no bookeh.
Recently, I realized that I only take it out of my bag when it is extremely necessary. I had always been looking for excuses why I shouldn't use it so I sold it. You have to feel good about your lenses! I didn't feel good about this one and I am happy that it is gone.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010
|
|
emandavi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 998
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The best wide-angle lens for cameras that now shoot videos. I love using this lens on my 5DII. You can't beat it for the price. Photos are sharp, with good contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I'm one of those guys who swore "I'm a photographer, not a videographer....". Then I found the right combo - a 5D Mark II and this lens. Now when I make a video of the images, I include short clipses of videos taken with the 5D II, and there's just no going back. Videos are here to stay.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010
|
|
KevinA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Good Colour, nice and contrasty
|
|
Cons:
|
soft and dreadfull distortion
|
|
|
Strange lens i love it and hate it, I use it on a FF cameras both 1DsmkII and 1DsmkIII, I know of other photographers that had this lens and got rid of very quickly. It is not a sharp lens, well it is at about 32 mm setting. Use it stopped down between 8 & 16 and the corners become acceptable - ish.
Awful distortion, don't ever think of using it for serious architecture work. The Sigma 12 - 24 is much better for low distortion, although that is also on the soft side.
Compared with the wide Nikon it's a bit of a lemon, I also tried the latest 16 - 35 mm, I thought that a bad joke to only much more expensive.
That is the bad bit, the good is it's perfectly usable, vignetting is OK, colour and contrast are excellant as is it's weight. I have shot thousands of images with this lens, at the moment it is as good as it gets for a Canon zoom in this range. I keep it for convienience, I now have the prime 35mm f1:4 and 24 mm f1:4 II, soon I will add the 14 mm and maybe 17 mm T/S. The 35 & 24 mm are leagues better than the zoom and so they should be.
The 17 - 40 mm is a good lens to have but should be much better than it is, the same can be said of the 16 - 35mm.
Yes by all means get one I would find it difficult to be without on some jobs but Canon should be able to offer much better with their UWA zooms than this.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2010
|
|
Dietr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Feb 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $795.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
For the price...unbeatable. Build quality and L color rendering.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This lens is amazing on a cropped sensor. Corners are a little fuzzy on a full frame but so are the corners on the 16-35L . I sold this lens about a year ago and have periodically regretted it. It's compact size was a real plus. BTW I have an instruction booklet for this lens that I found after the sale... if your interested PM me and I will ship it for free. Hate to just throw it away.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010
|
|
inski94
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
size, weight, color rendition, center sharpeness, corner sharpness from 5.6-8, FOV is so usefull and PRICE (for an L this is a bargain)
|
|
Cons:
|
corner sharpness wide open (a bit soft) not too bad in real life, just if you zoom in at 100%
|
|
|
I just bought this lens and on a 1.6x the FOV is great. It is a much better kit type lens with IQ that is much much better. On a FF it is amazingly wide at 17mm and still quite wide at 40mm. Great for landscapes and street photography. The build quality is typical of an L and the price is right. At f4 it isnt the fastest lens but paired with a 5D/2 at ISO 1600-3200 with or without a flash, this is a great lens even in poor light.
Highly recommended to complete a lens duo of 70-200, 50mm
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2010
|
|
faj3r
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, well build, weather sealed, very handy on x1.6, extremely fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
hood on full frame - you have to buy hood from 25-105 to use on x1.6
|
|
|
I use this lens for 2 years now, and have no regrets.
It's well build, it' sharp, and for me reasonably sharp on 4.5, and it’s for years, because it covers Full frame, so after upgrading my EOS 40D I'll be still using it.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2010
|
|
surf monkey
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2024
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value. Sharp center. Relatively compact and light. Very versatile. Fast, accurate focus. Weather sealing with appropriate filter.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weak resolution in corners (especially FF). Distortion moderate.
|
|
|
I purchased this with my first full frame DSLR the Canon 5Dmk2. Excellent combo for a versatile walk around setup (I like wide angle).
The 5Dmk2 is a wide angle torture test and very few lenses have sharp corners on it. The 17-40 is the best value wide angle for full frame and "gets the shot" when ultra wide is necessary. The lens is better at the longer end of the zoom range. At the widest focal length, even at f8, the corners are not very sharp. I find that the EFS 10-22mm is sharper in the corners on my Canon 40D at the wide end.
I prefer primes for the wide angle, because they seem to have sharper corners, but for a zoom, this one suits me for most shooting.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2010
|
|
Jay Adeff
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 328
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Sharp. Fast, smooth & quiet AF. Affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is a bit much. I replaced it with the hood from the 24-105 which works great on a 1.3 crop camera.
|
|
|
Bought mine used and was pleasantly surprised to find it a great lens for the money. Can occasionaly be a tiny bit soft at f/4, but the lack of distortions (CA or otherwise) means a bit of USM in Photoshop sharpens the images up nicely.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2010
|
|
Glenn B
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 95
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, very sharp even at f4!
|
|
Cons:
|
Trying real hard to come up with a con and I can't think of one!
|
|
|
I just came over to Canon after many years with Nikon. I loved my Nikon gear but it was the f4 line of "L" lenses that Nikon just can't compare with that brought me over. This lens was my first lens that I purchased to go with my "new" 5D. All I can ssy is I shouldn't have waited so long! Great build and sharp as a tack even at f4! I had the Nikon 17-55mm to use with my D300 before this. As great of a lens as that was I like the 17-40mm better! Sharper, less flare and cheaper! An all around great lens! The kind of lens that makes me go out and look for reason to need the wide angle:-)
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2010
|
|
joelypolly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, good image quality, cheap compared to other options, solid construction, supports filter in the mount itself.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is soft wide open, subject to flare as are most ultra wide angle lenses, requires a filter to complete environment seal. No IS. It's f4 so not as fast as it's f2.8 cousin but it is only half the price.
|
|
Definitely a must have for most shooters. Image quality is ok wide open and quite good stepped down. After coming from all IS enabled zooms not having this feature has meant a tripod is more necessary than usual. Slower hand held shutter speeds will often show blur depending on how stable your hands are.
The creativity that comes from having those extra MM really help and as this lens is EF it means if you upgrade from a crop camera body to a full frame you will be able to take your investment with you.
Full time manual focus is available on this lens.
Some sample photos can be found at http://joelypolly.blogspot.com/search/label/canon%2017-40mm%20f4 for those that are interested. I also posted some extreme flare examples.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010
|
|
Dvaprez
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a spectacular lens. Very sharp, beautiful color and fantastic feel. It has the sturdy handling you would expect from an L lens. I don't miss the stop and a half that the 16-35 F2.8 has.
|
|
Cons:
|
Because of the price I have been looking for flaws. I am going to stop looking.
|
|
|
I spent months comparing this lens to the 16-35 F2.8L. I have found nothing to justify the $1000 price gap. Having worked this lens hard over the last 30 days I am thrilled with it!
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010
|
|
dseidman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 514
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight, build quality, inexpensive for an L, weather sealed
|
|
Cons:
|
Corner sharpness, but it's not too bad.
|
|
When I upgraded to a full-frame camera, I had to find a replacement wide angle lens for my Tokina 12-24. After doing a little research, this lens appeared to be the best value out of all my options (which were pretty much limited to either this or the 16-35). Now that I've had more than 6 months to use it, I can say that I definitely made the right decision for the type of photography I do. I don't need to the f/2.8 of the 16-35 and I don't think the difference in sharpness justifies spending double the money. In fact, there seems be very little difference in sharpness at all judging by comparisons I've made between images produced with my 17-40 and a friend's 16-35.
Here are some samples of the work I have produced with this lens:
http://www.danseidmanphoto.com/keyword/1740
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2010
|
|
douglassalteri
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955639
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
