 |
|
|
minhnestrone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 122
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Light Weight. Beautiful looks and construction. A must-have for landscape photographers. Very well priced.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
This lens is sharp, light, relatively inexpensive and well constructed. I use to think the down side to this lens was it's constant F/4. But through the forums I've learned that the F/4 lens are lighter, cheaper and sharper than the F/2.8 counterparts.
The 16-35 F/2.8 might seem tempting for low-light needs but the price and (from what I heard) IQ might not be worth the dough at almost 1400 USD. That's double the cost of this lens. Since most of my Wide Angle usage is for outdoor the f/2.8 is unnecessary.
When I first used this lens I thought it was the biggest, heaviest lens ever. But now I know better, its the smallest, lightest L I own. haha.
I don't think you'll be disappointed by this lens and if you decide to sell, it retains its value well.
|
|
 Jan 13, 2009
|
|
HMZRHS
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2007
Location: Brunei
Posts: 62
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2009
|
|
EdStanley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Dec 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $545.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost, image quality, build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I used this lens on my Canon 20D and now use it on my 50D (both 1.6 crop bodies) as my walk around lens. It is just a tad soft at f4, but is razor sharp when stopped down. Some complain about the lack of wide aperature or IS. Adding these features would add to the cost of the lens. As it is, the price point is good. The color saturation is excellent. I have used this lens for everything from product photography to shooting on vacation.
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2008
|
|
Abdullah M
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2008
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $720.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, L quality, Good zoom range for 1.6x body.
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 needs high ISO in low light.
|
|
|
I think its best all around lens for 1.6x bodies like my 350D, with zoom range 27-64mm.
Its L lens with great image quality, with fast USM and acceptable price.
Indeed, the lack of fast aperture and IS reduce the capabilities of this lens.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2008
|
|
Alanu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 578
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp wideopen @ f/4, excellent colour and contrast, fast USM, L quality at a reasonable price.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
The purpose of this lens in my gear lineup is for UWA for my 5D and walkaround for my XTI. F/4 is not an issue since I tend to use flash majority of the time and for UWA it would be used for well lit outdoor photography (ie, car shows, landscape). I could not justify spending double $$ for a 16-35mkII since my application I would not use f/2.8-3.5 for UWA. If I'm in a bind I'll bump up the ISO.
If you have a crop sensor APS-C body the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 18-50EX and Canon's 17-55IS may provide you more "pop" to your images due to f/2.8.
The 17-40L on the 5D has significant barrel distortion from 17-2xmm so this lens has a specific application for the FF body. It is a fun lens when taking indoor photos of my little one. When used with my crop camera (XTI) the lens is a pleasure to use. On both of my camera bodies I am very impressed with the wideopen capabilities of the 17-40L.
If your on the fence between the 16-35mkII and the 17-40L it will depend on your style. For my application the 17-40L is perfect for my needs and the price is nice on the wallet. My 24-70L is my typical walk around for my 5D so the 17-40L will be the least used. If you require f/2.8 look no further and buy the 16-35L.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2008
|
|
tito trelles
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent images.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I shoot mostly fashion, but for my personal work, this is the all around lens. I am one who thinks what counts are the results, there is no perfect lens. I'm also a shooter, not an equipment collector. T
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2008
|
|
nsbkaizen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, weather sealed, affordable, sharp at f4
|
|
Cons:
|
Edges are soft
|
|
|
This is a really fun and versatile lens especially mated to a 5D. The center sharpness at f4 is excellent and I don't worry much about the softer edges. There is quite a bit of vignetting on a full frame but is easily corrected in post processing. I have considered "upgrading" to the 16-35mm f2.8 but can't justify the price difference for the extra stops and the added weight. I have found f4 adequate even indoors provided I increase ISO accordingly. On the 5D, I can go up to ISO 1600 and still get acceptable shots. I almost always use this lens at 17mm. I would welcome another affordable rectilinear wide angle (the 14mm is just too expensive) but until then I am very happy with the 17-40L. This and the 135L are great "bargains" if you're looking for a L quality lens.
|
|
|
Dec 3, 2008
|
|
Rolo Tomasi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 19, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 19, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, price
|
|
Cons:
|
very soft
|
|
|
I was looking for a replacement of my Sigma 28-70 EX as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor and ready to spend the extra money on the L series. After reading through most comments which were ranging from "excellent" to "very bad" it seems there is significant volatility within copies. Mine, unfortunately, is very bad. I used it on a 30d and my copy clearly lacks sharpness. I made c.400 shots with it and even compared to my cheapest lens (Canon EF 50mm 1.8, retail price GBP 80) its nowhere near that sharpness left aside the Sigma 28-70. I returned it to amazon and am back to the start. What to buy? Either I try more copies in order to find a sharp one or switch to Tamron 18-50 2.8 or comparable Sigma. I just dont want to spend GBP 900 for the the 16-35L. Any advice from anybody? To those with bad experience - how many copies did you try to find a good one.
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2008
|
|
Amit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1292
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2008
|
|
skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 13149
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
superb contrast and color, fairly sharp, build quality is as good as it gets
|
|
Cons:
|
only f/4, bulky, not as nice as the tamron 17-50 overall
|
|
|
fantastic contrast
seems to be prone to copies with decentering
slower than the tamron 17-50, less reach too, much more bulky, maybe not quite as sharp either, not worth it with the tamron out there
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2008
|
|
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 7, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,000.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, tough, versatile, sharp corner to corner above 20mm & f/8 (see review), uses 77mm filters,
|
|
Cons:
|
Flares easily (especially at wide end), not sharp in corners at 17mm, not weather sealed in front,
|
|
|
This is my second review of this product. My first review was based on usage of the 17-40 on a 5D. I now have a 1Ds MkIII and for the most part this lens is still great. My original rating was a 9 and I would probably give it an 8 now. The wide end of this lens leaves a bit to be desired...
Just don't expect the image quality to be all that good in the corners at 17mm - even if you go to f/11 or f/16.
Things change dramatically for the better when you hit about 24mm, where at f/8 it is quite sharp across the whole frame. I've found the best results for landscapes, interiors, etc at about 24mm + f/8 -f/16 with this lens. You can get by at 17mm but don't make it a habit. The corners will look really soft, with lots of CA and other strange color problems too.
Canon don't really make a lens in this range with stellar image quality, so most people are probably tossing up this lens vs the 16-35mm II. Test charts show that the 17-40 is just as good or better than the 16-35 II but with a narrower aperture. The 17-40 is much cheaper, lighter and just as sharp or sharper at comparable focal lengths and apertures as the 16-35 II.
I would recommend this lens to anyone not needing the f/2.8 aperture that the 16-35 delivers but be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the 17-40 and use it in ways that take advantage of those strengths.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2008
|
|
youcai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 324
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $560.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
L-quality, price, sharpness, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Corner sharpness, not really good for portrait
|
|
|
This is a great landscape lens with good sharpness and contrast. I've used it on a XTi and a 5D. It's good on XTi and great on 5D. It's sharper from 20mm -35mm than 17-20mm. But you will not use 17-24 range very often on a full frame. The corner is not as sharp but acceptable. Overall, great lens for only $500-600.
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008
|
|
Cliffee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Typical L quality. Solidly built, sharp, colorful and contrasty from wide open. Accurate focus thank to a wonderful USM motor. Lightweight.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I just picked this pristine copy up used on Craigslist for $470.00. Needless to say I'm very happy. I have had and now selling a Tamron 17-35. When I purchased that Tamron I sampled several lenses at my local camera store and took the sharpest copy. I can now honestly say the Tamron doesn't hold a candle to the 17-40L. When people compare the two they obviously have the Tamron and are wishing they had this.
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2008
|
|
HMZRHS
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2007
Location: Brunei
Posts: 62
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp.Sharp.Colour separation good for crowded and close up p
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE
|
|
|
My investment paid off since i just purchase 1DS MKiii.Hook to this camera makes alot different since the previous body was 1D MKii. Now this is all time lens hook to 1DS and my 1D Mkii hook full time with EF135mm L F/2.Strongly recommeded for FF and 1.3 Crop.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2008
|
|
Brendan Rouse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 20, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, build, colours
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Really nice landscape lens and then doubles as a nice walk around if you have a crop body.
Some may say not quite wide enough but it works for me.
Produces high quality images
Highly recommend
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2008
|
|
mushlix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 44
|
|
Review Date: Aug 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
|
|
|
I just bought this lens today and after a full day of testing the lens I must say I'm impressed. Since I've been pondering the idea of investing in a lens I couldn't really decide between the EF-S 10-22mm and the 17-40mm. I liked the UWA of the 10-22 but wasn't sure if I would use the lens on a daily basis. I'm a big fan of prime lens but I also must say that carrying 3 lens and + in your bag and swapping them all the time to get different shots is a bit annoying.
The 17-40mm delivers a good IQ, sharp, colorful and consistent. On the down side I found that it tend to overexpose the sky in some situation but eh, it's only been one day so I guess I'll get better with it (plus NYC is quite smoggy lately). I've read quite a lot of good and bad reviews on the lens, some saying the IQ at the corner was inacceptable at f4. I must have a good copy since mine gets very little distortion at f4-6 and none over 6, but that's a different story for FF owner which isn't my case. Overall good performance and looks solid.
If you're looking for a good lens and don't wanna break the bank for the 16-35mm this is a good alternative (not as good but...). I do recommend a filter for it (UV or clear, up to you) and if you can afford it get the prime 50mm f1.4 so you're covered for portraits and those low-light shots.
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
955775
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
