about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
514 982005 Mar 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_

Specifications:
A new and affordable L-series ultra-wide-angle zoom lens that's ideal for both film and digital SLRs. Superior optics are assured by the use of three aspherical lens elements, in addition to a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) glass element. Optical coatings are optimized for use with digital cameras. This lens focuses as close as 11 inches (0.28m), and offers both Canon's full-time manual focus and a powerful ring-type USM for fast and silent AF. It has a constant f/4 maximum aperture, and offers the choice of screw-in 77mm filters or a holder in the rear of the lens for up to three gel filters. Finally, it offers weather-resistant construction similar to other high-end L-series lenses.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
       †††
gberger
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 220
Review Date: Mar 16, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: price, weight, wide angle coverage on full frame, reasonably sharp, build quality
Cons:
Not the sharpest lens in my bag, very soft in the extreme corners at F/4, distortion.

I bought this lens used when I moved to full frame and could no longer use my Sigma 10-20 (which I loved). The 17-40mm range is perfect for shooting functions in tight spaces on a full frame body. Sharpness is excellent but not up to the best 'L' lenses. On the other hand, for this price I don't think it's reasonable to expect that kind of optical quality. Images respond well to sharpening in post so as long as you are not expecting to publish straight out of the camera (who does?) you'll be fine.
Most of the frame is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down. Extreme corners are soft wide open but acceptable stopped down. If you're shooting landscapes or architecture you will be stopped down anyway. Real-world it doesn't bother me, it's only obvious when pixel-peeping at 100%. On a cropped body I would expect this would not be an issue.
There is distortion at the wide end, I'm not sure how it compares other lenses but it is definitely there. If I was shooting architecture for a living I'd look around before jumping into this lens.
Overall it's a very good lens that provides a very useful range of focal lengths for those times that you need it. It just doesn't bowl me over the way my other L lenses do, but again it's a fraction of the price.


Mar 16, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gberger to your Buddy List  
photo1a
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Feb 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 470
Review Date: Feb 24, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

Pros: Sharp image, light weight
Cons:
Auto focus problems

I have used two copies of this lens over several years. Each copy eventually developed an auto focus problem. After a year or two of use, the lens would "hunt" and "chatter," never locking on focus, even in good light with high contrast subjects. The first lens I sent to Canon repair. The lens worked for about a year, then the same problem developed. Subsequently, I purchased a second copy of the lens. It worked for about two years, then the same problem developed. I did not drop or misuse either lens. I have not had a similar problem with any of the many other Canon lenses that I have.

Feb 24, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add photo1a to your Buddy List  
hans.dampf
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 12, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 11
Review Date: Feb 17, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great image quality Sharp from f/4 on Great range on both Full Frame and APS-C
Cons:
f/4 not always enough Not so light to carry Vignetting on full-frame (can easily be removed in PP though)

I have been using this lens for 3 years now. Initially I had the Canon 450D and now a 550D . It's just a pleasure to use, silent USM and ultra fast. The image quality is top right from F4.

The only fault we can sometimes read about on some specialized sites is that the extreme edges are not great on a full frame sensor (24x36mm) but that "problem" does not exist on a "small" APS-C as the sensor is smaller so I would venture to say that this is not really a problem with XXXD, XXD or 7D.
I removed a star for the price that is still quite high, especially at this time , and then the range could annoy some people. In my case, this 27-64mm is perfect for my way of shooting, excellent in every way.
A purchase you will not regret!

Don't forget that Canon L lenses keep their resale value very nicely, so even if you want to buy, try it for some time and then move to another lens, this is not a problem because you can sell it easily after some time.

As for the f/4 - as you shoot wide, you want great DOF so f/4 is not really a limiting factor for such a wide lens.

Posted by Photographe de Mariage


Feb 17, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hans.dampf to your Buddy List  
JMDobson
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 3, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 60
Review Date: Feb 9, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Light, cheap, and fast focus. Really wide zoom range.
Cons:
Soft corners, strong vignette. Plasticy feel



Feb 9, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add JMDobson to your Buddy List  
lunacat
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 13, 2014
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 6
Review Date: Jan 22, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros:
Cons:

I have bought this lens for landscape photography 3 years ago and it's one of the lenses I hahve always on my camera. The build quality is wonderful for its price and I love the fact that you can use the same screw-on filters as the 70-200mm. A lot of people are wondering wheither or not to buy the 17-40 or the 16-35mm. I had wondered myself but I really could not afford the difference in price and also the change in the filter diameter on the 16-35, which would have meant for me to buy other filters, therefore more money spent for the 16-35.
Therefore, for landscape, it's a wonderful lens and I love using it on travels.

I've for example used it during a trip in Ney Zealand and I really enjoyed this great lens for landscape photography:
http://www.lunacatstudio.fr/photographe-coucher-soleil-nouvelle-zelande-photographie-paysage/
http://www.lunacatstudio.fr/photographe-mont-taranaki-nouvelle-zelande-photographie-paysage/
http://www.lunacatstudio.fr/photographe-milford-sound-nouvelle-zelande-photographie-voyage/
http://www.lunacatstudio.fr/photographe-mont-cook-nouvelle-zelande-photographie-paysage/


Jan 22, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add lunacat to your Buddy List  
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Review Date: Oct 2, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Compact and lightweight. Good zoom range
Cons:
if they could make an f4 this light, that would be great...

This is my second copy of this lens.
i purchased this several years ago and used it for landscapes. I then sold it and acquired the 16-35 II. After a few years in the field, I looked back on my old photos with the 17-40 and thus proceeded to sell the 16-35 and re purchase this lens.

Its sharp, controls flare beautifully and the contrast and colour are "L" quality.

Bargain "L" series lens.


Oct 2, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Peter Kotsa to your Buddy List  
eduardvdk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 9, 2013
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 9, 2013 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 5 

Pros: quick AF-system and sharp picture's
Cons:
Lots distortion

Hello all,

I recently did some shots with this lens, looked gret at first, but back in my studio I could see quiet some distortion, do you guys have the same problem? Check a few of my shots at http://www.bruidsfotograaf.nl

Looking forward to hear from you.

Eduard


Jun 9, 2013
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add eduardvdk to your Buddy List  
Simon Swales
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 27, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
Review Date: Nov 18, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Price. Build quality. Lightweight. Good autofocus.
Cons:
Soft in the corners. Lens hood very shallow.

I use mine with a Canon 5D mk II and it doesnít disappoint. For the money I have no complaints.
It is sharp but slightly soft in the corners on FF but I can live with it. I use it for wide-angle landscapes where I can stop it down to f/11 and put it on a tripod. If I want slightly better quality I would need to spend over double the money Ė and I donít feel inclined to do so.
The auto-focus is silent, quick and accurate. Both the manual focus ring and the zoom ring are smooth.
It does vignette in the corners at the widest angles but this can be corrected in Canonís DPP software.
The 77mm filter thread is a plus for me as it is the same as that on the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS lens, which means I only need one wide-angle filter ring for my LEE filter system.

Click through to see a panorama of Edinburgh from Edinburgh Castle taken with this lens (handheld):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/5083976419

Click through to see a night time shot of The Forth Bridge in Scotland taken with this lens (mounted on a tripod):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/7065072695

If you are (A) upgrading to Canon FF (B) shoot landscapes, (C) donít need f/2.8, (D) require a robust, lightweight wide-angle zoom then this lens should tick a lot of boxes. Well worth the money.


Nov 18, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Simon Swales to your Buddy List  
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 15, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Price, build quality, bokeh, fast AF
Cons:
Soft wide open

Great lens for the price. Only a bit soft wide open. The elder series on my site are made with this lens.
www.totaalfotografie.nl


May 15, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add aestiva to your Buddy List  
nswelton
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 246
Review Date: Apr 11, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: affordable, great build quality
Cons:
copy variation, not super sharp

i've used three copies of this lens and have never quite been satisfied with it. i never quite feel that my images have been in focus! i can live with its soft corners because honestly on FF when you're shooting at 17mm, people get distorted and i try to frame them away from the corners anyway... (landscape shooters will obviously have a totally different perspective). but even in the center points, i'm always kind of "meh" about this lens. i guess if you wind up with a good copy it's relatively affordable for what you get.

Apr 11, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add nswelton to your Buddy List  
girod199
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 20, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 20, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, Great Build, Compact, Light, Low Price
Cons:
f/4 aperture

This lens is very sharp, or at least my copy is. Even wide open it is sharp. Other reviews say this lens isn't sharp but mine is very sharp so their might be some quality control issues. The build quality is typical of Canon L lenses. The zoom and focus rings are super smooth. The auto-focus is very fast, very accurate, and silent. On a 5D Mark II it feels small. It is also fairly light. The hood does not seem useful because it is so small. The f/4 aperture is slow, but for what I shoot I usually don't shoot wide open. If you are planning on using this lens as a general purpose zoom on a 1.6x cropped camera, I would suggest the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which is just as sharp or more sharp and has a 2.8 aperture. That was my favorite lens when I had the 40D. The f/4 aperture is too slow and 40mm is not long enough on a cropped sensor. You might consider it for a cropped camera if you will be in extreme conditions because it is built like a tank and weather sealed with a filter or if you plan on upgrading to a full frame soon. I think this lens shows its full potential on a full frame. It has a nice price tag and will get the job done. I would recommend this lens to anyone with a full frame camera, especially those that do landscape photography. Even as a pixel peeper, I am happy with my results with the 17-40mm. Here are some of my first shots.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7041/6844304674_b9f599a473.jpg
Main Street USA Station by M Girod, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6844351320_d68000cba6.jpg
Main Street USA Station by M Girod, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/6844369556_9dbba8a43d.jpg
California Screamin' by M Girod, on Flickr


Mar 20, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add girod199 to your Buddy List  
fishyfinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 3, 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 19, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very sharp, very well made, good fun to use.
Cons:
Price.. I am just tight..

Hello.

Not long had this lens, so still learning!
However, what I can say is that it is very sharp, and it is very true what others here have said; bit soft in the corners on a full frame.
Still, use it on a small sensor camera and you will have a great wide lens.
Great fun to use, love looking for mad angles..
If you want sharpness in the corners, simple, spend more money.
So far I have used it for every type of shot, happy with all the shots I have taken. Use with care, when pointed at peoples faces, and you will get great images.

Love it very much, buy one I think you will like it!
Have a look below, set called 17-40mm, some of the shots taken in Shetland with this lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishyfinger/

Thanks for your time,

Tim.


Mar 19, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add fishyfinger to your Buddy List  
dimsonation
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 30, 2010
Location: Israel
Posts: 7
Review Date: Mar 14, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: build quality, value, color/contrast
Cons:
soft corners on FF body

I've had this lens for almost 2 years now. first i got it as an upgrade for my tamron 17-50 on 50D, when i was making lens lineup adjustments for my move to FF. needless to say it performed flawlessly on a crop body. both the build quality and the IQ were deserving it's L mark

After moving to 5D Mark II i realized what everyone been talking about. while the center sharpness is great, the corners are falling behind unless you close it down to around f/8.

I compared it to 2 copies of 16-35 II, the corners were just slightly softer on my copy but the center sharpness was identical, and when closed down beyond f/11, the differences are almost non existent

In the past year I've been using it as my main UWA for landscapes, mostly in it's widest (and optically the weakest) setting. When closed down to around f/11-f/16 it provides a very good corner to corner sharpness with very little softness in the extreme edges. the contrast and color rendition are great

It's a great option for any FF user on a budget


Mar 14, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dimsonation to your Buddy List  
ic2foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 28, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Size. weight, build quality
Cons:
My copy not sharp at the edges of FF body

I want to simplify my kit for some upcoming travel and thought the 17-40mm L was a logical choice. Nice size, nice build quality, reasonable price and most importantly it covers the 3 focal lengths I use the most - 17/24/35. Unfortunately my copy is not sharp at the edges - at any focal length or f/stop - and this is critically important to me as I sell prints (larger and larger these days) of my work for a living.

On my 5D bodies my copy is very sharp in the middle at the above focal lengths, and the sometimes noticeable distortion can be corrected in DXO. However, at 17mm my Tokina (17mm AT-X AF Pro f/3.5) is so much better in every respect that it is somewhat embarrassing by comparison. At 24mm the results are comparable to my humble but very solid performing Canon 24mm f/2.8 (other than the edges). At 35mm the performance is once again acceptable (other than at the edges) even when compared to my Zeiss ZE.

I'm giving my copy an 8 overall because of the good qualities listed above and the hope that other copies perform better. If not - then this lens won't work for those want or need sharp corners in their images.

As an aside, I also tested my Tamron SP 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 for the first time in conjunction with the 17-40mm. While the Tamron is not as critically sharp in the center as the Canon, it is a sharp lens with much more even performance across the entire frame. I've carried the Tamron in my kit for a couple of years and have not used it once. I just wanted to have an AF zoom lens on hand in case I needed one. While it won't replace my prime lenses, I now have a FF walk around setup that I won't hesitate to use - knowing that I'll be able to make large prints of satisfactory quality. BTW - given my copies - at 24mm and 35mm I would choose the 24-135 Tamron over the 17-40 Canon without a second thought because of the more consistent performance across the frame. FYI


Feb 28, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add ic2foto to your Buddy List  
jerbear00
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Jan 16, 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 665
Review Date: Feb 16, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $590.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharper than I expected. Small. Good for landscape. Price.
Cons:
f4

Great buy for the price. Fun on both my 7D and 5d.

Feb 16, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jerbear00 to your Buddy List  
IIDMax
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 29, 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 21
Review Date: Jan 17, 2012 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Build like a tank. Great lens for travel. You should try hard to broke it! Lowest weight for L lenses. Cool for APS-C.
Cons:
Distortion on full frame. My copy isn't sharp at corners (not a problem on crop)

I own this lens for 3 years. It is simply great on crop. Dust and Rain is not a problem. Light weight make it possible for camera to be on your shoulders all the time in bike tours!

Jan 17, 2012
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add IIDMax to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
514 982005 Mar 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $671.49
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.49
8.87
9.0
ef17-40_4l_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next