 |
|
|
halse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very good for garden/landscape
|
|
Cons:
|
not so good for isolated subjects
|
|
|
bought off of Craigslist for $500, it is excellent for what I use it for: pictures of the garden to keep a record of how it is doing with most shots at 20-30mm both at around f/8 or above (usually at hyperfocal focus) on a tripod and some at f/4 handheld, color is fine as is the "IQ", pics could be a bit sharper
overall the 17-40 does what I got it for.... have shot some of isolated subjects (flowers, kids..) but the 50mm 1.4 is much better than this is at 40mm for these kinds of pics
had tried out the 16-35 L and while it is a bit better the optical difference, for my purposes, didn't justify the price difference
the consensus review of the 17-40 seems to be that it is a lot of value for the money and I concur with that
|
|
 Jun 12, 2008
|
|
carlsbadbum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1987
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Best L for the price. Sharp, light wt., compact and the lens doesn't extent when zooming.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood. I'll have to switch to EW-83J.
|
|
|
For the price of $500, I have no complaint. The only thing I wish Canon to fix is switch out the current hood, otherwise I have to spend $50 for a EW-83J hood. Some may ask for IS, but is it necessary? It's a wide angle, and I don't want to pay more for something I don't use.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2008
|
|
wrwhite76
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very clear, One of the best lenses for Landscapes!
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
My new favorite Lens for my 5D
|
|
|
May 29, 2008
|
|
doug1408
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp...light...build...great pricing...
|
|
Cons:
|
silly hood
|
|
|
unbeatable sharpness, color and price....i also have the 24-70 L 2.8 and this is half the weight...trust me the 24-70 is just as sharp and renders colors great, but holding it steady w/out IS requires a fast shutter speed due to the heaviness of the lens, not only for a blur free shot but also, its not a walk around lens thats comfortable...
|
|
|
May 28, 2008
|
|
Matthew Leffle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 46
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $520.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, tough, flare resistance, great range, red ring :P!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Great lens for both full-frame and crop-sensor cameras. It is durable, not too heavy, but well-built. The sharpness blows me away...It is very sharp. This lens will stay in my kit even when I get my 5DmkII or 1Ds!
|
|
|
May 26, 2008
|
|
elfanucchi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 183
|
|
Review Date: May 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and Great Value
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
Sharp and Great "L" value.
Shot mostly short and wide.
Some Flair w Hoya MC UV 0A when shooting
in direction of Sun ...
but then what do you really exect ??
|
|
|
May 22, 2008
|
|
yashiguru
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, constant aperture, very good optics
|
|
Cons:
|
Chromatic aberrations wide open
|
|
|
I own mine for a couple of weeks replacing a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.
Impressions till now:
- excellent build quality, smooth focus and zoom ring though I like more the ones on 70-200
- USM - fast and reliable focus
- f/4 is slow for interiors (look for a faster lens)
- light around 500g, easy to carry
- the hood is ugly but that's not a problem
- on 400D at the same aperture ( f/4 ) is sharp as the tamron in the center and much sharper in the corners
- exhibits chromatic aberrations wide open even in the center of the frame stopping down helps eliminating them (are gone by f/5.6)
- comparing both lenses at f/11 I noticed much better contrast and sharpness from canon (lower degradation caused by diffraction)
- the tamron at 17mm is a little wider than the canon
hope this helps
|
|
|
May 14, 2008
|
|
normygordy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Horrible hood.
|
|
|
I first used this lens on my 30D as a walk around, but never quite went wide enough, or far enough. I tried Sigma 18-50 f2.8 which was great but still lost out on the wide end and focus hunt was awful. I finally upgraded to a 5D with a 24-105L - my dream combination since it came out a few years ago, but finally at a price I could reach. But what a weight, and distortion at 24mm very noticeable if not careful with positioning. Then the 17-40L when on and wow, full frame is what this lens was really made for. In combination with my 70-200L, is is everything I have always wanted. OK - it could go just a tad longer, and to f2.8, but then it would be a whopper again, and with the image quality of the 5D, cropping to the equivalent of around 80mm is a piece of cake.
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2008
|
|
nico_p
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 15, 2007
Location: Angola
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: Apr 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality, weight, price, ideal range for landscape on full frame.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
I use this lens on a 5D and it is far better than my 24-105 in terms of image quality. The colours pop, the images are crisp, the skies are awesome. I didn't do any sharpness test, but it is plenty sharp for me (printing up to A3). I use it a lot on a tripod, closed down from F8 to F22.
The range is really great for landscape on a full frame camera, from super wide to almost normal. Coupled with a 70-200 I have all I need when I know I can spend time on setting up my tripod, change lens, etc.
It is truely a joy to use with a 5D, and if you are using a tripod and good technique you can quite easily obtain great, great, great results from this lens. Be carefull with polarizers, don't use them at full strength at 17mm otherwise you'll get strange looking skies!
On a 1.6 camera I think there are much better alternatives (17-55 2.8 for instance, or the Tamron alternative). 17 is not that wide on these cameras, and 40 feels short compared to 55, so in my opinion it does not qualify as a good walk around lens on these bodies.
The equivalent of this lens on a 1.6 camera is a 10-22 or 12-24.
It was really designed for full frame.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2008
|
|
Anthony Hope
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This lens is superb, its very very sharp, with great colours, contrast and it makes the sky look 3D. Its better than the 10-20mm and 24-105mm and produces better colours and contrast than the excellent 85mm F1.8.
Fantastic.
Anthony
www.hopesphotos.co.uk
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
cuffer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 71
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
good wide to normal zoom range for a crop boddy, great quality (build and optically)
|
|
Cons:
|
supplied lens hood is a bit much on a crop body and does shadow the onboard flash
|
|
|
I've seen a few other reviews that praise this lens as a good choice for the 40D and I can only concur. If you need something faster, this isn't it, but I love it for landscapes and as a general purpose zoom on the crop body.
I originally picked this lens as a compromise, concerned that it wouldn't be wide enough on the 40D, but not wanting to get heavily invested in lenses that would not cover full frame. So far, I've been more than pleased and feel no need to go wider for what I shoot - at least for now.
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2008
|
|
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
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 539
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 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 4, 2008
|
|
jkurtz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 230
|
|
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: 3430
|
|
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: 107
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
508
|
1059695
|
Feb 5, 2022
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$672.17
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.49
|
8.87
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
