|
|
mccc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
I love this lense because have a "L" built and is cheap.
Allmost of this photos are 24-40mm f4 L:
www.mariocaldeira.com
Mc
Portugal
|
|
 Jul 23, 2010
|
|
nelvayut
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $623.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
good value L lens, nice price, best wide angle for landscape
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS
|
|
Canon 17-40 is a good lens for landscape photography. Its a great value L lens too. I own this lens since November 2007 and I love it. I took most pictures using this lens and the quality is good as the 24-105. 
Here's some samples using the 17-40:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/codeblue1/4747265257/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/codeblue1/4742769376/
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2010
|
|
nycandre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good value for the money - lightweight - very sharp, at least in the center - great zoom coverage
|
|
Cons:
|
not that bright, soft in the corners - rather large
|
|
Remarkably sharp in the center, which means you are better off shooting with cropping in mind if your subject will be off center.
My impressions were corroborated by the excellent review at the-luminous-landscape site: there the authors compare it to the uber professional 16-35 2.8L. And, turns out that aside from not doing the 2.8 thing, the 17-40 and the 16-35 have areas where one is better than the other, but otherwise are really close.
As far as bokeh is concerned, you actually can get some, albeit not as easily as with the 2.8. And its quality is just excellent, not too surprising, since it's at f4.00
Here is a shot demonstrating the center sharpness .. the tiff file, which is about 60 megs shows incredible details, more like a macro, and even the off center resolution is very reasonably sharp.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4743987277/
This other shot shows the quality of the bokeh much better, also its handling of off center areas, which doesnt detract from a great image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4076691149/
And, yes it does great for beautiful leggy ladies ..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4025442567/
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010
|
|
tororo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Flare-resistance, contrast, colour, sharpness (F11~ @ 17mm), weather sealing, zoom-range, light-weight, USM, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing for landscape photography
|
|
I provide images to various international travel/nature magazines including National Geographic and this lens is by far the best EF-mount full frame lens for landscape photography during outdoor activities.
16-35mm F2.8L II is too heavy/big for traveling/activities in nature such as trekking, kayaking, paragliding, etc.
Some people are not happy with soft corners at 17mm at F4-8. But for landscape photography (which you stop down anyway), this is not an issue as it gets as sharp as 16-35mm F2.8L II at F11 (even better if you get a good copy).
Some examples taken with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413194709/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4606037443
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3506976914/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3071345120/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3961264079/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/3506170351/
|
|
|
May 26, 2010
|
|
dustnet
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, range, weather sealing, price, 77mm diameter
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS, a bit soft and the edges
|
|
Along with the 70-200 f/4 IS L, this lens is always in my backpack when I'm doing travel photography, here is why:
- Lightweight, you basically don't feel it in your backpack.
- Weather sealed when used with a filter.
- Very fast autofocus.
- No purple fringing like I used to have with my Canon EF-S 10-22mm.
- Distortion is moderate.
- Has 77mm filter diameter, with is the case for a lot of Canon lenses.
Its biggest competitor is the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 II (or I) but I personally don't need f/2.8 with this kind of travel around lens. If I want a nice bokeh at a short focal, I will use my 35mm f/1.4.
If you want to see real situation samples, just check my blog and website:
http://photography.emmanuelrondeau.com
http://blog.emmanuelrondeau.com
Emmanuel.
|
|
|
May 25, 2010
|
|
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: 331
|
|
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
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 6, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 103
|
|
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: 8
|
|
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: 804
|
|
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
|
|
|
