 |
|
|
Joshua June
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice lower cost L series Glass, sharp to the edges, buy a refurbished one to get a guaranteed calibrated piece.
|
|
Cons:
|
No matter How I tried... I could not get it to function in low light or indoors.
|
|
|
I am going to keep my rating a 10, but with this caveat; I needed it for indoor film noir work after testing it in super contrasty bright outdoor work. I was beguiled by the easter like explosions of color but was quite disappointed when I brought the lens inside, in less contrast environments. Which is not the purpose of this glass, thus the rating stays a 10, I'm just saying be careful when using this with an Xti or the like where anything beyond ISO 400 looks like crap thus forcing you into higher exposure settings... Not to mention it really finds some creative depths to focus on in low light giving you some very strange albeit frustrating photos.
|
|
 Apr 7, 2008
|
|
Ralph Wagner
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 509
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Does what it is supposed to do.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
For the price of this lens there is no better value.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2008
|
|
jkurtz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 213
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp. All that is expected of an "L" lens. Quick AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a 2.8. Not so wide anymore on a crop body, but thats not the lens' fault.
|
|
|
This was my first "L" lens to own. I began using it on my 35mm where it is a true 17mm and fell in love with it. Use now on a crop body but is still my favorite lens right now. For the price, it is a beautiful lens. Could always have a 2.8 but with at least double the cost.
I definitely would recommend this lens to anyone.
justin
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2008
|
|
sivrajbm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2772
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $470.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast focusing, great IQ, quiet, FTMF, great color, great build.
|
|
Cons:
|
not 2.8 but then again neither is the price
|
|
|
Ok, I tried not to like this lens. I wanted the 16-35L II, I got this one for a great price, just couldn't pass it up. I may still get the 16-35L II but later, this lens does everything but shoot @ 2.8. It is fast and sharp, my two favorite things in a lens. I've continued to be free of my Canon curse. My last three "L's" have all been SOTB (sharp out the box). Don't ask how many were not, it offends some people. Anyway try it you might like it. Now I can go for the 135L next.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
babylonboots
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, excellent IQ, light weight, low cost "L"
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I sold my 10-22mm when I upgraded to a 5D. It was a pretty even trade cost wise.
The image quality produced by this lens is outstanding. The copy I have is very sharp, even wide open. Color rendition is exceptional.
The lens feels really good on a 5D. I find myself reaching for it more and more.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2008
|
|
James pf Chow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2007
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $550.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Colour renditions, naturalness, High IQ, UWA (with 5D), affordable L, built quality, right weight, and weather sealed
|
|
Cons:
|
No complaints unless you could afford 16-35mm for f/2.8
|
|
|
Followed up to our earlier review with cropped camera.
Teamed up with 5D full frame, it is astonishingly good, fast AF and real ultra wide at 17mm with full-frame camera. It is very sharp, contrasty, and the colours are wonderful. Juts love it!
A very good lens indeed for the price. It's also good for walk around, and on full frame it really pops and explodes to life. It is also perfect landscape with 5D.
Highly recommended. Go for it!
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2008
|
|
markarce
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 478
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $731.25
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
it opened my eyes to what i am missing as a lifeless bum. i liked the colors and sharpness my copy produces. built really solid. mated with my 40D, it hits the sweetspot all the time.
|
|
Cons:
|
now i don't like my other lenses anymore. Madness...
|
|
|
first of all, audition all 17-40's you can test in the shop before buying. if there's nothing sharp, move on to the next store because chances are, my copy is sharper.
the 17-40 creates a nasty shadow with the built in flash of the 40D so i have to spend money again buy external flash. my 70-200 f4 does not cast shadows with the built in flash(at least in my experience-hoodless).
L lenses not only costs more, it makes you spend more!
unless you are a professional graphing paper photographer, you'll really appreciate the power of this lens. you'll find out there's nothing to complain about.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2008
|
|
sendjo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
almost everything... sharpness, color rendition, focusing, build quality, flare resistance...
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe not enough reach on crop bodies
|
|
|
I used this lens on crop body (EOS 400D) and I`m very satisfied with everything. Near perfect landscape lens!
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2008
|
|
gandalfk7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, colors, on 35mm it's REALLY wide, 28-64mm on aps-c format, uber-fast af.
|
|
Cons:
|
strange and ugly lens hood, 77mm front filter thread, addicting to L line..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008
|
|
jkataine
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, fast, sharp, price
|
|
Cons:
|
None for this price
|
|
|
One of my favourite lens and cheap even its L.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008
|
|
BKeith1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, great colors, excellent design.
|
|
Cons:
|
Beginnings of the L addiction and no inexpensive cure known.
|
|
|
This is my first L lens and it is an incredible addition to my 40D. Photos are extremely sharp at all lengths and colors are excellent. Strongly recommend it for a walkaround - its design and build quality just make you feel more creative. I am looking for my second L lens now. Thank you Canon.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2008
|
|
Perry Ge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Feb 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, weight, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Light fall-off, barrel distortion.
|
|
|
I use this lens on a 5D, and it's one of the best I've ever had. It beat my old 50 1.8 prime's IQ hands down, and gives my 200L prime a run for its money.
I don't know what's going on when other people are bashing its IQ, or if I just got a superb copy, but this is one of the best lenses I have ever had the pleasure of owning. It is very good at 40mm, and astonishingly good at 17mm - very sharp, contrasty, and the colours are wonderful.
On the downside there is some light falloff, especially when I use lee filters (I do landscapes) and barrel distortion at the wide end, but nothing to get me whining about.
A very good lens for the price. Highly recommended. It's a good walkaround on a crop but on full frame it really explodes to life - the perfect landscape lens.
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008
|
|
epphoto
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5052
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Price for L-class lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality
|
|
|
Well i don't really have nothing good to say about the lens
I don't want to go in to allot detail here, but after 5 of them and trying to find the
sharpest one , I had to spent the extra money to buy the 16-35mm
The last one i have sent it back to Canon 3 times and never came back sharp
The only thing you have to do is , just look your picture at 100%
If you're going to do any big prints like 20''x30'' i will recommend to stay way for them
it worth to spent the extra $$$ and get the Canon 16-35mm MarkI or MarkII
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $660.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price-to-Value ratio is very good for this lens. Works fine for landscape. Build quality if nothing-less than what one would expect from an L-series lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Since I use an apc sensor body aka Canon 30D this lens works really nice IMHO.
|
|
I really like this lens and use it a lot to shoot outdoor landscapes. I've got a decent set of sample photos here: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Canon%20Zooms/Canon%20EF%2017-40mm%20f4%20L/
-Roy
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008
|
|
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 7, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,000.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, sharp, uses 77mm filters.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not truly weather sealed unless front filter used. Vignets once front filter is used. Bad image quality at corners on FF. TERRIBLE BARREL DISTORTION on objects closer than 5 meters or so.
|
|
|
If you are thinking of getting this lens to photograph architecture, think again. It's ok for landscape shots though. Canon really needs to make a good quality no distortion wide angle rectilinear prime at about 16mm f/1.4 that costs the same as the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII.
You can't call a lens rectilinear if there is barrel distortion. You should call it "We tried to make it rectilinear but it was too hard so we left some barrel distortion (aka fisheye) in there for you. have a nice day"
I guess this lens suits most uses. Just not things with straight lines that you want to keep straight.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008
|
|
aestiva.nl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, Build quality, focus speed
|
|
Cons:
|
Wrong lens hood for 1.6 camer's.
|
|
|
After upgrading from the excellent Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 28-75 2.8 ( I missed the focus speed en build quality) I also really thought that this was Canon worst L lens. Ik couldn't believe all the positive story's on this forum and sites like the digitalpicture.com or photozone.de
Well, last week I tested my lens at Rofa Repair in Den Haag en the problem was that I have a litte backfocus wich was the reason for the softness.
After calibrating my 17-40, the sharpness is almost a little bit better than Tamron 17-50 but the clearness is much better and the same as my 70-200 4L. Excellent color, saturation en contrast. I will keep this lens my whole life!
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952617
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
