Exiting zoom range for particularly indoor, but also landscape.

Fine colours, and contrast.

Light; in comparison to 28 - 70mm/2,8.

Low flare; almost nill.
Low distortion (at least on mine)

Ideal together with D30.

Unsharp edges at large aparture. Plastic construction cracks. Large quality difference between individual lenses; don't buy one without a proper waranty and assurance that you might return it if it isn't sharp enough. - Nikon have the same problem with theirs, however.

Relative to competition, Canon seems to have run into the same problems with this extreme zoom lense as Nikon; large differences regarding quality from lense to lense. Not at all so crisp and sharp as 28-70mm/2,8L, - which is the Sharpest Zoom In The World, but stopped down to 5,6 - 8,0 the result is 'OK'. Bought mine 2. hand, and were probably lucky, got a 'fairly good' example. the lense's strong side is simply it's zoom range. Very practical for indoor use (real estate, interior, Christmas party, birthdays, - there is ample room for everybody present, from kids to old ants). Mixed results with landscape; from 'excellent' to 'bad'. The 'bad' results is certainly worse than many of the a lot cheaper lenses supplied with the cheaper EOS cameras. Remember to stop it down! The large aparture is practical when auto-focusing indoor; seldom fails. Disappointing mechanical quality; plastic cracks! Ideal focusing range when used with D30. Have not tried this yet, but will soon. Difficult lense to give 'value rating' due to it's extreme range. Nikon users report of same kind of problems with the latest Nikkor 17 - 35mm/2,8. Same supplier?

Customer Service

Excellent. I hava a Canon service shp 'just a few blocks' from where I live. - Never needed it, though, except for asking advice.

Similar Products Used:

FD35-70mm/4,0, EF28-70mm/2,8

Very sharp and bright when used on an EOS D2000 / Kodak DCS 520. Works well inside in available light as well as outside in landscapes. On a digital with its 1.6 focal length multiplier, this is a good prime lens.

Could be cheaper (-:

A very good lens. It and the Canon 100-400 IS 'L' spend more time on the camera than could have been predicted.

Customer Service

Not needed for this lens. I have had one favourable experience with Canon service.

Similar Products Used:

Nothing else that wide, but have used a wide variety of Canon lenses since getting my first Canon SLR in the early 1970s.

Untra wide angle covers everything at tight spots and indoors. Great also for landscape photography and architectural work. Pictures are sharp and contracty, colour reproduction is excellent. USM motor works instantaneously and accurately everytime, and is very noiseless. Lens constructed like a tank for heavy duty work. Zooming action does not alter the length of the lens, improving weatherproof design. Very close focusing distance of 0.42m

Slight distortion at 17mm when taken with straight lines perpendicular to lens barrel. But that is quite normal for all wide angles. Also, lens is a bit too expensive.

Excellent lens for all situations. If I had to choose only one lens for an assignment, this will be the one.

Customer Service

not required

Similar Products Used:

None

Great wide angle coverage, large aperture good for indoor & low light photography, lightweight, fast USM, sharp & contrasty.

Slight vignetting at wide open due to attached filter

Great lens for indoor and low light photography. Good 2.8 maximum constant aperture. Great for group photos and architecturals. Low distortion at widest end. A must have for every serious camera bag.

Customer Service

None required

Similar Products Used:

EF28-135 IS USM, EF24-85 USM, EF 100-300 USM

Excellent color and contrast. Professionally acceptable sharpness: tack shrp in center (Hey, its a zoom....) Allows "big" landscape shots at 35mm. Lightweight, sturdy.

Not exactly rectilinear at 17mm, but commendable at 22-35. Looses just a bit of sharpness around edges at 17-24. Watch for vingnetting with standard filters at 17-24mm, but OK with spendier wide angle filters.

Indespensible for landscapes. The slight non-rectalinear distortion at very wide angles becomes something you can work WITH. I never leave home without it.

Customer Service

Never needed. Solidly built.

Similar Products Used:

None

Sharp when stepped down to f/5.6

Soft when wide opened
Very expensive for the quality
Not as well build as other "L" class lens
Vignettes even with a thin polarizer filter is used
Not very well corrected from 17-20mm

I'd not even bother getting this lens. For the quality I would go for the Sigma 17-35 which is lighter and has the same or better quality than this "L" lens. It definetly needs an update. Maybe a new 17-35L II 2.8 will be made.

Customer Service

Don't know

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-70L
Canon 70-200L

Rugged
Nice design
Focal range and coverage

Price

I've used this lens almost everyday for the past three years, from India to Indonesia, in all kinds of situations. Always great snaps and not a minutes trouble, ever.

Customer Service

Never needed.

Similar Products Used:

None

Range
Sharpness
Contrast
Near instant autofocus

Much plastic, a bit of backlash on zoom ring(play)

My sample seems sharp. I guess I am lucky? Just wish it was better built. That would make me feel a lot better about spending $$$ for an L zoom. Maybe the next version will be more sturdy? This is the lens I use the most.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor 24 f/2.8 AIS
Leica M 35 Summicron

Focal range, 2.8 ,77mm filter size

average results

Hard to jsutify the high price given the average results. Not particularly sharp nor contrasty. Distortion at 17-20mm.

Customer Service

Not Needed

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 17-35 AFS

WIDE zoom range
excellent sharpness and contrast
light weight

none

I don't understand the panning of this lens throughout the review pages. It is built exactly like the 28-70 f2.8 and no one complains that it is cheaply built. As for the weight, buy a cheap, light lens if you don't like it and expect to get light weight picture quality as well. It's alot lighter than my 28-70. The sharpness and contrast are as good as my 28-70 f2.8, but not as good as my 70-200 f2.8, but this lens is scary good. It almost looks 3d. I think alot of these people are parroting what they read and don't even own this lens. They even had me scared to send in the $1100 but the first rolls of film I got back made me grin from ear to ear. Don't listen to the naysayers or the jealous Nikon people. It's worth every penny. Get this lens and love it!

Customer Service

never needed in 25 years of Canon use except for routine cleaning of AT-1

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5
Canon 28-70 f2.8
Canon 70-200 f2.8
Canon 50 f1.4
Canon 100 f2