 |
|
|
roberto1979
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1334
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $525.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, image quality even in the corners, weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
There's been a lot of talk these days about Nikons 14-24 WA and it got me curious. I'm not really a pixel peeper, but I decided to do some test shots with my 17-40 and I was really impressed with the corner sharpness on my 5D. I personally picked this lens because I hike a lot, I'm broke, and I shoot on a tripod. If weight is a factor, price is a factor, and f/2.8 is not a factor, this could be the lens for you.
|
|
 Jan 17, 2008
|
|
pumbaa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2007
Location: France
Posts: 30
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrusction, sharpness, Fast and silent AF speed
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
About more than a year using it, all i can say about this lens is that it is the best bang for the bucks.
At a reasonable price, we have L construction, USM and the very good sharpness. CA and flare are very well controlled. But I have to test 3 copies to get the very good one, two others have some border sharpness problems on a full-frame camera, well it depends on QC of Canon, not the lens itself. This lens has beautiful color rendition as of Canon’s L lens, fast but sometimes not really reliable focusing mechanism. High distortion at almost all focal length makes it hard to be a good portrait lens even on crop cameras where the effective focal of the lens is 27-64. Contrast is a bit dull due to its max aperture is just F4. If you’re using crop camera, just go for the efs 17-55 2.8 IS or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and your photo will get better contrast and, do you think f2.8 is the same as f4?
Some people hesitates this baby and his big brother, the 16-35 2.8 II. Have a chance to have all of them; I can tell you that, they are worth their price. The 16-35 II is sharper wide open than the 17-4 at F4 and has noticeable better contrast, better corner sharpness and better exposure but for double the price… so it’s not fair to compare.
Sample@f13
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/1080751717_15ccdb2a10_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1108/1216906897_b9abc6430b_o.jpg
www.pumbaa32.com
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2008
|
|
Aaron Fuchs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, wide, not too expensive, built quality
|
|
Cons:
|
not f2.8, not 17-60mm, does not cook foot
|
|
|
nice, nice, nice, ...
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2008
|
|
smarinic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality excelent, colors, quite sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
hood is wierd, could be couple of mm longer or wider
|
|
|
Using it with a 30D for a year now, and must say I am completely happy with it. I really like it to be built as a tank, may times this feature comes handy in crowds of Hanoi and Pakistan... IQ is great, sharpness is consistent from F4 onwards.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2007
|
|
Ghost
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1822
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $670.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Price for L-class lens, weather-proof, nice size... not bulky, beautiful colours, consistently sharp wide open (but not as sharp as my 70-200 F4L)
|
|
Cons:
|
Weird hood. tele-end could be longer. 50mm would be great!
|
|
|
I waited a few months of usage before posting my comments. I have been a skeptic of this lens for a long time preferring the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as the better choice especially factoring the price.
However thanks to some great deals going on, I decided to purchase one and try it out after all I can always sell it. L-lens hold their value well.
I am pleasantly surprised that this lens produces beautiful colour renditions. I have a 10-22 for my home interior work. And i am never that impressed with its colours and contrast although a quick trip to LR usually perk things up. With the 17-40L, I don't have to do much with the original image. It is also sharp.
A good lens for the price.
However i am still torn about it being a walk-around lens for my 30d as I already have a 28-105mkII which has longer reach despite a narrower wide-end. So it's tough to decide which to bring out on outings. at 105mm I can get beautiful portrait shots with the 28-105 but the 40mm tele-end isn't optimal. So I am still reluctant to let go of my 28-105mkII. We'll see....
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2007
|
|
guillaumebegin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact size, Excellent (as usual) L construction, Weather sealed, Excellent walkaround lens for a 1.6x body, Tack sharp in the center, Excellent quality/price ratio
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as wide has I would have expect (1.6X crop factor :-( ), F/4 is a bit slow in low light situation, Borders are a little bit soft (but it is not a big deal)
|
|
|
I love it!
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2007
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Supersharp files ,strong made,good sexy design,nicely made and very well made pics its a true gem.
|
|
Cons:
|
None-
|
|
|
This must be Canons little gem,paired with any Canon DSLR and alike youll get pro look files and pics ,its very good made The 17-40 is even made in japan with weather sealed design (Canon are you listening ? keep it simple stupids = succes ).
On an FOV crop 1,6 camera its perfect ,need i say more?
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2007
|
|
gobenho
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
My copy is super-sharp at all focal lengths. Nice contrasty images.
|
|
Cons:
|
None. People who complain that it's not f/2.8 should get the 16-35 or the 17-55.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for a trip to China that I recently took. Along with this lens I also packed a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. The 70-200mm stayed in my bag almost the entire time! The 17-40 had the perfect focal range on my crop body (20d) and I never felt like it was too short.
For street photography, f/2.8 is too narrow of a depth of field so f/4.0 isn't really a handicap. Also, anything longer than the 40mm on this lens makes me feel too much like a paparazzi for this type of photography (another reason why my big-white lens stayed in its bag most of the time).
For night photography (in the city), I set my camera to Manual mode f/4.0, 1/30th and 800/1600iso. I rarely encountered a situation where there was not enough available light to get the shot (probably because the streets/markets were fairly well lit in China).
For the price and the features, this lens is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2007
|
|
bergie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Rugged build; image quality; price
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the money
|
|
I can't compare this lens to the 16-35 since I can't afford it, but from the landscape shots I've taken, I'm more than happy with it.
I've seen the reviews of people complaining about corner softness, but for landcapes, I'm always stopping it way down anyway, so the fact it's an f/4 intead of 2.8 doesn't matter to me and I'm much happier to save the $1000 for the replacement of the 5D.
I have this mounted on a 30D and it definitely is not as wide as the 10-22 I had, but the color rendition does seem to be better, especially for blue skies.
This shot is with no PP: http://bergquist.smugmug.com/photos/211842109-M.jpg
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
pixelda
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good price for an L lens. Low CA, Low flare, good near focus, common 77mm filter. That red ring gets you noticed!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I moved up from a Canon30 and 10-22mm to the 5D and 17-40 recently. Since I take mostly landscapes, and having used the 10-22mm for several months previously, the f4 max-aperture wasn't an issue for my current needs.
The 10-22mm is not that bad a lens compared to the (non-Canon) competition, but the quality of the 17-40mm is noticably better, not least considering I am using it on a full frame camera. A recent UK digital photo magazine featured a pull-out containing about a dozen readers landscapes printed at A4. Over half of them were taken using the 5D and 17-40mm - so it is a performer in the field (literally!)
The 10-22mm has noticeable CA at the edges, whereas the 17-40 does not. CA on the 10-22mm was also exagerated when processing several images into HDR using Photomatix. Results with the 17-40mm are much improved.
I always use the hood to reduce flare, and even shooting into the sun creates very little flare using the 17-40mm compared to the 10-22mm.
The lens isn't heavy to me - you just fit it and away you go. All controls are smooth. I usually manual focus, but I've tried the AF, which works without hassle. Canon's Ultrasonic System always works well my work.
If money is an issue to you, the 17-40mm will not dissappoint. You will have to pay nearly three times the price for f2.8 and no noticeable improvement in quality
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2007
|
|
Josh Bustos
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 344
|
|
Review Date: Oct 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Internal zooming, not heavy, not very expensive, good bokeh, very sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
not f/2.8
|
|
I use this lens on a 30d, and I've had a LOT of keepers with this lens. even on a 1.6 cropped camera it is pretty wide, and has a decent range depending on what you are shooting. definitely some distortion at f/4 and 17mm.
Is this my favorite lens? No.
If I wanted a great L lens thats under 1,000 dollars would I buy this? YES. this lens is so worth the money if you can't afford a 16-35. It even has that extra 5mm reach.
Here is a sample shot Straight out of the camera, demonstrating the bokeh and sharpness of this lens. This picture was taken on a kind of dark, gray day.
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Guitar23player/?action=view¤t=IMG_0689.jpg
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2007
|
|
Phil UKNet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2007
Location: Thailand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent, versatile walkaround lens. Good colour rendition, fast and accurate focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little extra length at the telephoto end would be welcome. No IS, which is something we are coming to expect on all lenses these days - even wide angle.
|
|
This is the first lens I bought when I switched to a digital system and the lens that I use most of the time. It is an excellent, versatile lens capable of delivering very pleasing images.
At just over 27mm (full frame equivalent) on the wide end, it is adequate for almost all of my needs but occasionally a little extra length on the telephoto end would be welcome.
The 17-55mm F2.8 EF-S IS sounds like an interesting alternative but I would need to upgrade my camera body first, my 10D not being able to accept EF-S lenses. The extra stop, extra zoom range, image stabilisation, and reportedly high image quality all sound great.
The 17-40mm - as with all L series lenses - is built like a tank and feels like a serious piece of equipment. Colour rendition is good; focusing quick and accurate. It actually makes for a good portrait lens without subjects suffering from ugly perspective distortion.
Physically, it's a big lens (77mm filter) and with the lens hood attached I cannot use the onboard flash on the 10D at 17mm although it is OK at 40mm. The built-in flash on later 1.6x crop body cameras raises higher so this may not be a problem with the 20D/30D/40D.
Even if I were to buy the 17-55mm, I cannot imagine selling the 17-40mm because it has served me so well for over three years.
Some sample images at:
http://phil.uk.net/photography/canon_17-40F4L.html
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007
|
|
balje064
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, great color, good contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
at 17mm a bit too much distortion
|
|
|
I use this lens on a 30d.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2007
|
|
deepak kumar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $697.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Full frame performance is awesome
|
|
Cons:
|
copy variation is a problem
|
|
|
I have to add a comment to my previous review.
My previous lens had an right sided back focus problem. I had to go through two copies before finding a perfect one. There seems to be some copy variation that's a little concerning for a top tier lens.
With the new copy, this lens is contrasty, sharp and much more colorful than my previous lens.
When mounted on a 5d, it completely changes character and shows it's potential. Compared to a 10-22, it's very sharp in the corners, although showing a bit more vignetting. Really excellent images -sharper throughout the whole frame than the 10-22 with similar color and contrast. Take the comparison with a grain of salt - these were obviously on two different camera models.
Basically, on a full frame body, this lens makes a lot more sense. It's really a 'must buy' on these types of cameras. If you get a good copy, it's absolutely top-notch. On a crop, it's not as compelling.
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2007
|
|
deepak kumar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $697.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, solid construction. Essentially an internally focused lens with the very little zoom extension done within the main barrel. Good IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
Not truly weather sealed. Images a little dull.
|
|
|
Good not great IQ right out of the box. Sharpness, contrast and color are not as vivid as some other lenses. RAW images PP well, though, and with a little work were excellent. Keep in mind that unfinished RAW images from this lens are relatively low in contrast and saturation. I've owned two copies of this lens, both with spot on focus and they both had these tendencies. Compared to a lens like the 24-105, these characteristics are obvious. I don't know that I would necessarily call these weakness b/c, as I said, a little PP is all it takes for very good pics.
Build is very good and I really like the size and weight as well as the fact that it doesn't extend outside the body of the lens.
Awesome value - I can't think of another lens this nice with this level of quality.
Overall, very good. Takes a little work to get the most out of this lens. Pics are more subtle and don't pop like some other lenses (ie 24-105). I would recommend trying other lenses in this range, in addition to this one, as its color rendition, etc. will not be to everyone's taste.
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
Nicholas S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant aperture, sharp wide open on full-frame (film) bodies, excellent and great build quality, just a right physical size, weather sealed.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focal length is too short, mediocre image quality (read below..), strange hood.
|
|
|
This is my story of this product. I owned this lens for about a year already.
I use this lens on a 1.6x crop body, and somehow (or maybe it's just me) I'm not satisfied with the image quality it produces. Yes it has great color and contrast, but I think it's not that much difference than my 18-55 kit lens. I don't even notice that this lens is much sharper wide open than the kit lens. When stopped down, yes it is very sharp but only on buildings and geometrical subjects no matter how far you are from the subject. When capturing trees and leaves (both on distant) it is almost no difference than the kit lens.. I really disappointed in this area.
But when I mount it on my EOS 3, it's a different story... Very sharp wide open (unlike my 50 f/1.8 II!!), great ultra wide angle, total weather sealed in this combination. However you must note that vignetting will occur when you use normal thickness of polarizer; or a normal UV + slim polarizer. Sometimes this problem is really inconvenient for me, especially during travel when I have not much time.
Occasionally I use this lens combined with external flash unit when used indoor - that's a very good combination in my opinion - especially mounted on a 1.6x crop body - even I think 40mm it's too short, but still a reasonable range.
Another important point - the zoom and focus is really nice, well-built. And the AF/MF switch is really nice. The USM motor is very silent, fast and accurate.
Recommended if you agree with all of my points =)
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
953183
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
