Tack sharp images, great color, very fast auto focus. $1,000 less than 2.8, but who really needs true 2.8 in the world of digital these days now that the iso is SO clean in the canon 1D mark 2's.

I don't have another?

This is a great lens. I really don't know what people are complaining about. I came from the 17-35mm 2.8, and this lens is much sharper and color is much more correct than that other lens any day of the week. It is my work horse lens, I literally use it everyday for work. My images are all tack sharp from this lens and the auto focus is very fast. highly recommended.

Customer Service

never used them.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 17-28 2.8, Canon 16-28 2.8, canon 20-35 2.8

Good build, Looks the part

Poor Image quality

I find that this lens is not as sharp as i would expect for an L series lens. It is no better than any of the consumer zoom lenses which i have and seems nowhere near as sharp as my Tamron 24-75. I use it with my 30V and Eos3. For landsdcapes it seems to mush up the greens and gives poor contrast and detail with foiliage. Overall i am dissapointed with this lens. I will look to Tamron and Tokina for comparison and eventual re

Customer Service

Phoned them re under exposure on my eos 3. I told them it was a stop and a half out compared to my 30v under the same conditions. The answer i got was ; well they are two different cameras..........Hmmmm

Similar Products Used:

20-200 F4 L Lens Tamron 24-75 Di

Excellent build quality, silent and fast AF, sharp from f/5.6 to f/11. Focuses close.

This lens exhibits fairly awful lens flare, even with the hood attached, even when the light source is out of frame. Expect to spend time correcting this in photoshop. Also, as a digital SLR lens, the distortion at 17mm (aka 28mm on my EOS 10D) is as bad or worse that my a cheap consumer zoom: weird stretching of straight lines which are not even that close to the edge, even when the subject is ten feet or more from the camera. I wasn't expecting an architecture lens, or that the distortion would match a prime, but this one is unusable (in my opinion) on people in city exteriors or any interior, where there are a lot of straight lines in the background.

I feel the need to warn people away from this lens!

Customer Service

NA

Similar Products Used:

Pentax 28-70 f2.8 zoom, other Canon L zooms and primes, nikon and Contax prime lenses.

Fast and quiet focus. Best built quality in my lens line up. Lovely accurate and saturated color. Quality does not drop significantly at wide open.

Size could be reduced like Tamron's line. Not always tack sharp (for this expensive zoom.)

This is the major work horse for my 10D. I used 20-35mm USM before this and was not fully satisfied with it. I would think the 20-35mm zoom is definitely not wide enough for the 10D. Although 20-35mm is a good lens, the 17-40mm can take more good quality photos than the 20-35mm can. The f/4 speed is good enough for my purpose. The point is that this 17-40mm zoom performs at wide open almost as well as it does at other apertures. This f/4 is really a useful f/4! The image quality is over all very satisfied. The resolution and color accuracy is noticeably better than 20-35mm. For the distortion, I really haven't heard any super-wide (<20mm) lens that does not have (or very little) distortions. I agree with the previous review that the distortion itself is sometimes a part of photograpic creativity! Many people even use fish-eye lens to get more distortion! After more than a half year frequent uses, I have not found any dust inside the lens! This zoom is not the sharpest zoom. But again I found it to be over all sharper than the 20-35mm zoom I have used. My new Tamron 28-75mm produced more sharp images than this one. But I still think the over all quality of this zoom is at least as good. I like the photo colors from this lens more than those from the Tamron. Also, I need this zoom range for city, indoor or scenic shots. For people shots, I have my 50mm f/1.4 and 80-200mm L (The zoom I own with the best optical quality!) I don't hesitate at all to give this one a 5 stars. As for the value, I think many Canon lenses are over-priced. This one is relatively a new and hot model, so you cannot find a bargain in used market. Expect to pay over $600 for any new or old ones in good condition. I will post pictures from this lens later on lc-photo-art.com. I am at intermediate level and would like to share ideas with beginning or intermediate users. You may e-mail me at lc-photo@lc-photo-art.com for any questions or comments. Thanks for reading this.

Customer Service

No signs of going wrong.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35mm USM model. EF 28-135mm IS. Tamron 28-75mm (I would recommend this one!)

Very well built; ergonomic - pleasure to use; moderate weight for carrying outdoors; provides extreme w/a on a film body, complementing more normal lens lengths.

None really for this length and type - all lenses are an optical compromise and any 'distortion' I've seen is no more than expected in an extreme w/a zoom. I like the extreme perspective of a film body and use it deliberately. (Expensive in the UK - Canon really tries the patience of their UK customers for good glass with prices 20% or more above international levels. Hence bought in Boston.)

My 17-40mm L is a real pleasure to use and is producing excellent results for me. The colour rendition is great - saturated and vibrant - and the images are significantly sharper than either the 28mm f2.8 prime or the 28-105mm I've used for several years. I disagree entirely with the previous two reviews: it should be absolutly no surprise that a zoom set at less than mid-20s focal length will produce distortion. That's a large part of its creative potential. If you want to avoid distortion get a good standard or a shift lens instead, but it won't have the versatility of this. I DID contemplate the new 24-70mm L for the additional stop and its legendary sharpness, but have absolutly no regrets that I chose the 17-40 L instead for the wider end and lighter weight. I use it frequently with the (film) EOS3 for stunning wide-angle 3D effects and as a standard zoom on the D10.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28mm f2.8 EF; (OK) Canon 28-105mm II USM (much less sharp, colours too muted); several Canon kit w/a zooms (rubbish); Leica Summicron 35mm f2 (superb).

strong made

price

I Use the Tokina Pro 17 mm Lens 3,5 mm.and the Canon EF 20-35 mm Lens instead of this Canon 17-4o mm which everybody seems to fall in love with,whether its good or not!?.For my part i chosen the others as i find no reason to invest so much money on a lens which i dont think is so fine as i expected.It seems that on my D1 the prints i get is very fine and my clients are more than satiesfied. I really cant see that much difference,and i think that the 20-35 is better in some areas as distortion and colours regard. Its the same story again; The 24-85 and the 20-35 is so well made and cheap compared to their sister and brother 24-70 L and the 17-40 L,and much more light that they are true bargains for your money! Buy a good tripod a new Cam or a travel for your wife instead and be happy!

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

many from canon and nikon

Sparkles like an exotic jewel on your camera Dust seals Great for digital as a 27-63mm

Price £600 in the UK!! Distortion

Despite the reviews here I have to disagree. I ended up taking this back and staying put with my 20-35mm f3.5-f4.5 as the distortion was rather unacceptable. It only seems to settle at 28mm, but at 30-40mm pincushion is rather prominent indeed leaving me puzzled at the hype I have read. The colour rendition is excellent though, but then I think the last word in contrast and colour is in Photoshop, as all my images are tweaked in the end. Before all you 10D users jump up and down, if I wasnt using an EOS3 I could see how this lens would be total joy as a 27-63 or whatever it is, because I love wide angle and the crop factor problem really does make me very hesitant indeed. I really do think digital is it's only market, as distortion is very disappointing with film. The 20-35 is half the price, controls distortion much better and is very sharp at f8 or below. If you never use a tripod then start using one (Manfrotto Carbon One is fantastic) and save yourself ££ on glass as the 28-105 and the 20-35 are fantastic consumer lenses when stopped down. Check out www.loona.eclipse.co.uk - all these photos were done with either of these two lenses. I wanted to like this lense because it looks awesome on my Eos3, but I didnt buy it to look at, I bought it to look through!

Similar Products Used:

20-35 f3.5-4.5

Constant f/4 aperture, superb sharpness, great color reproduction, good working range, distance scales, affordable, wideangle even on dSLR, black finish, USM focus drive, hood included, solid build quality.

Large filter size (77mm), weight, slightly prone to flare (esp. without the hood), f/4 (if that matters to you)

What's there to say? An affordable wideangle (even on dSLR) with L quality glass in it. Can't go wrong here. The f/4 couldn't bother me much, there's always ISO adjustments, flash or using a tripod. As said before: if you want faster aperture, just drop another K for the 16-35 f/2.8L.

The usual - colour, contrast sharpness. Value!

None really. Don't get hung up on the F4 vs 2.8, unless you're a indoor/portrait shooter. I hate it when people say 'gee I wish it went down to 2.8'...if you need 2.8 spend an extra grand pal and get over it.

Very sharp, great colour and contrast. Very happy with this lens on both Digi (300D) and film (EOS 1n) bodies. One thing to mention is that when you put a polarizer over a UV (I know that this is a no-no but sometimes you have to work fast), there is no vignetting @ 17mm on the digi coz of the crop factor, but there is noticeable vignetting when shooting on the film body. No surprise, but there you go. Back to the review, this is a sturdy, smooth, relatively lightweight lens. Excellent value - definitely recommend.

Customer Service

not needed yet

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 20-25 2.8 Tokina 28-70 2.8

Build

None

I have 3 Canon widezooms: 20-35mm F3.5~4.5, 18-55mm F3.5~5.6 and 17-40mm F4. I was hoping for a better stopped-down sharpness over my 20-35 when buying the 17-40, but I found no big advantage over the 20-35. I was also surprise that the 18-55's sharpness is close to the 17-40 in the centre, although there is no comparison at the edge (EF-S has a smaller image size). If you already have the 20-35 and 1. You don't need the extra 3mm (or 5mm on EOS10D). 2. You don't need a very good build quality. 3. You don't buy lenses to impress people. Then, I suggest you keep your 20-35. I'm checking out the prime lenses......

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

20-35mm F3.5~4.5, 18-55mm F3.5~5.6, Zeiss G 21mm