Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 35mm Zoom
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 35mm Zoom
[Oct 31, 2003]
rajb2
Intermediate
Strength:
see above.
Weakness:
none so far. 1.sharp pictures 2.light weight 3.affordable. 4.nice zoom range 17-40mm 5.Recommendable to anyone.6. with its SUD glass incorporated,i found a difference in color,clarity and sharpness over my 28-135mm pics that i took in Disney world. nice results. Everybody liked my pics and asked me which camera i used. i didn't mention the use of this lens. Customer Service none Similar Products Used: canon 28-135mm,50mm f/1.4. |
[Oct 24, 2003]
Gaz
Intermediate
Strength:
ULTRA SHARP. Half the price of 2.8 versions. Lightweight. 77mm filter size. (Fits my other lenses). Amazingly close focusing distance. Perfect wide angle in every way. Super fast ultrasonic focussing speed.
Weakness:
Absolutely NONE. This is the best wide angle zoom lens available for the CANON EOS system. I have used the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 2.8 L series lenses, and they are both no where near as sharp as this lens in my opinion. Customer Service Never had to use CANON customer service. Similar Products Used: CANON 17-35mm 2.8L CANON 16-35mm 2.8L SIGMA 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 HSM |
[Oct 20, 2003]
frederic
Intermediate
Strength:
-optics -build quality -fast af -silent af -nice wide angle on DSLR -light lens to carry around
Weakness:
-some flare -f4 could be sharper first look on the lens was good, strong build and perfect finished. Gives you a nice wide angle on a DSLR (10D in my case). Now about shooting with it, do gice you sharp images, at f4 litle soft but stil sharp enough, once on f8 or higher great image quality. Lens does have some flare, not realy from light in the front but light from the side, sometimes it helps to cover the lenshood a litle more, flare can disapear then, it would be realy nice if canon would bring out a lenshood ecpecialy for DSLR users (a longer one) because they just use the midle of the lens and the flare would be less that way. AF is fast and silent. Also the lens is a very light one still very hapy with it. Customer Service not needed Similar Products Used: sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX |
[Oct 19, 2003]
sreid
Professional
Strength:
Very light for an L lens, well made, quick and silent USM focusing. Reasonably priced. Tested on a 1Ds: 17mm - sharp edge to edge from F/8 to f/16 20mm - sharp edge to edge from F/8 to f/22 24mm - sharp edge to edge from F/8 to f/22 28mm - sharp edge to edge from F/5.6 to f/22 35mm - sharp edge to edge from F/4 to f/22 40mm - sharp edge to edge from F/4 to f/22
Weakness:
Lens performance is only fair wide open from 17 - 28mm (on a full frame DSLR). At 24mm, similar to 24/2.8 prime at F/4 and F/5.6. At 28mm, Canon 28-70 is sharper than 17-40 at F/4 and F/5.6. Maximum lens opening of F/4 may be a limitation for some types of photography. This is an outstanding lens and the first L zoom I've owned that I could honestly call lightweight. I do an informal test of all lenses I buy, checking them at all marked focal lengths at all major apertures for edge to edge sharpness (photographing a sheet of newspaper held flat against a bulletin board). The 17-40 outperformed my much-loved 20-35L which is an excellent lens in its own right. The Canon F/4 L lenses seem to be a great compromise between weight and performamce. I'm impressed with both this 17-40L and the 70-200/F4 L. Customer Service None needed yet. Similar Products Used: Canon 20-35L, 28-70L, 70-200L/2.8, 70-200L/4, 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8 MK1, 50/2.5 macro, 85/1.8 Various Kodak Ektar, Rodenstock and Schneider large format lenses |
[Sep 04, 2003]
Robbert
Intermediate
Strength:
Zoomrange, construction
Weakness:
price, sharpness Optical not as sharp as i would aspected, esp. from 24 to 40mm. Compared to the EF 24-2.8 (both at f8) it is soft, it is simular to the EF 20-35 3.5/4.5 for sharpness. Contrast is much better than the 20-35 and comparable with the 24-2.8. Resistance to flare is also good. Customer Service No problem Similar Products Used: EF 24-2.8 EF 20-35 3.5/4.5 EF 50-1.4 |
[Aug 27, 2003]
jinjimbob
Casual
Strength:
Fast AF, wide angle
Weakness:
f4, would nice to be 2.8, but that would cost way more. Great wide angle lens, much better than the Sigma. Customer Service No experience. Similar Products Used: Sigma 15-30mm |
[Aug 19, 2003]
RC
Professional
Strength:
Sharp and quick focusing. Good colour and usually good contrast.
Weakness:
Flare flare flare. Since I shoot events that are not under my control very few shots can be staged or repeated. Flare from this lens is sub par. It is no where near the level I have come to expect with L lenses. I have had clients complain due to this and might end up switching back to primes. This lens makes my Sigma fish eye (a prime) look great. A good prime for the 10D, and a lot of fun on my film bodies. Too prone to flare for my liking so I might end up replacing it with a prime 17mm or 20mm. To put this into context, I also use the Sigma 15mm fisheye and the Canon 24-70L, so the overlap this lens provides is nice to have but not essential. For most people this lens is great. Customer Service Very helpful and good in Malaysia, however I seem to be making so many trips to them that they know me as a regular ;-( Similar Products Used: Tokina 17mm, Tamron 24 and 28mm. Sigma 15mm. |
[Aug 05, 2003]
Momentz
Intermediate
Strength:
Sharp Fast USM Affordable Light Good range on DSLR (17-40)
Weakness:
Still pricey as compared to other makes like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron This is a great alternative lens if you cannot justify the need for a 16-35L. The built is almost the same and it's lighter and almost cheaper by 50%. Pictures taken at low light is great. You will miss the f2.8 stop when you are shooting indoor. Since I'm always using flash for indoor, I don't need the extra stop. No one shoot at f2.8 anyway. The quality of the picture is very sharp as compared to some of the other lenses I used before. USM is very fast and the weather seal (the same seal in 16-35L) is another added advantage. But I found out that this lens is very vulnerable to dust if you don't use a UV filter to cover it. Can anyone tell me which zoom is not vulnerable to dust... Customer Service No required as yet. Similar Products Used: Tamron 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 (Avoid at all cost) Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 (Better lens than Tamron) |
[Aug 03, 2003]
Jack Straw
Professional
Strength:
size, wieght, price
Weakness:
must be used at F8 at 17mm to produce exceptable quality images. I shot 3 rolls of trans. with this lens the day I got it. I have to say that at 17mm at F4 there is way to much light fall off/vignetting for my liking. Even with out the hood and a filter, at 17mm at F5.6 the light fall off was still evident. |
[Jul 27, 2003]
howiewu
Intermediate
Strength:
beatiful colors sharp well built and sealed USM silent and fast
Weakness:
none I must say that this is one heck of a lens. I have had two Tokina utra wide zooms before (the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 20-35 f/2.8 ATX Pro). While the tokinas are sharp, they are not nearly wide enough on a Canon D60 digital camera. Also, the Canon lens produces much better colors. This (color rendition) is one characteristic -- not sharpness, contrast or anything else -- that separates Canon L lenses from others, IMHO. Back to the lens -- it is very well built and sealed, USM is silent and fast. The zoom ring is a little loose (at least on my copy), but not a big problem. It has internal focus so it doesn't change length during focusing. During zooming the front element moves inside the barrel but the whole lens doesn't extend. If you put a UV filter in front of it you will completely seal it. The aperture (f/4) is wide enough for this focal length range, at least for me as I use it at f/8-f/16 mostly anyway. And the images it produces are breath taking -- beatifually saturated yet truthful colors, sharp even at wide open. The focal length range is incredible too - from 17mm which is 3mm wider than the "standard" definition of "ultra wide angle" 20mm to the almost-normal 40mm (I wish it had gone all the way to 50mm though ;-)) Before this lens came out I contemplated on getting the Sigma 15-30, 17-35, or even the EF 16-35. When it came out, I knew that my search was over -- this is the lens to get. Forget about the Sigmas -- they may be optically good, but the 82mm filter ring is just too odd (and costly). Other third party manufacturers' ultra-wides are not wide enough (starting from 19mm at the widest). And this one has the longest reach (40mm) too! IMO, at $700 and with the price surely to go down even further, there simply is no reason to get any other ultra wide zoom lens, unless you *must* have f/2.8 in which case you can pay twice as much to get the EF 16-35. Customer Service not used yet Similar Products Used: Tokina 20-35 f/3.5-4.5, Tokina 20-35 f/2.8 ATX Pro |