Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
by Canon
|
List Price: Our Price: $779.00 You Save: $621.00 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $640.00 (click here) Category: Digital Camera See more product details |
|---|
Customers in the UK,
Buy this product at amazon.co.uk
for British Pounds
Digital Cameras Photo Reviews of Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Customer Review: I got a gem!
Summary: 5 Stars
I am very pleased with my recent purchase. I tried one of these a while back and was not all that impressed. Returned it. I can not justify the cost of the 16-35, so I tried again and am so glad I did. This one is super sharp. Possibly more than my 35mm f1:1.4L prime - although to be fair, I usually don't shoot at f:4.0 with that particular lens. This is prompting me to ship the prime to Canon for adjustment.
I own a 350D, 5D and a 7D and this is great on all three and performs beautifully. I'm happy!
The issue of low light shooting at f4 is less of a concern with the low iso noise performance of the 7D, and I can shoot with a slower shutter speed too since it is so wide. Group shots at f4 get most people in focus. Not always so at 2.8
Pros:
Focus is instant and silent.
Light weight
Well Built
Sharp
Color/contrast
Red ring - this thing is beautiful to look at. Proud to own it.
Cons:
These are getting spendy
Moving front element may induce dust [just put a filter on]
As we know it is f/4. Not really a "con" because the product excels in what it does, but rather a limitation.
Concluding - there is always talk of good and bad copies. I got a great copy no doubt about this one.
Customer Review: I immediately bought the 70-200 after using the 17-40!!!
Summary: 5 Stars
"Wow!" is all I can say to express my reaction after getting prints taken with my 17-40. I've been using Nikon manual-focus Nikkors since 1988 and was always satisfied with the color and sharpness. However, after using the Canon "L" series, I've sold a lot of my Nikkors. The color, clarity, sharpness, and detail of the "L" lenses are amazing. The prints have this 3-D effect (without having to use those silly red/blue glasses!) 8-) Within 3 weeks of receiving my 17-40, I ordered the 70-200. Those two lenses will replace my whole Nikkor collection. Build is really good. The "L" zooms are a little bulkier, but very managable. The Nikkors are smaller, but very heavy. But lense technology and coatings have improved so much in 20 years, I can see the difference. I tested the lens by pointing it toward the sun. The 17-40 surprising handles flare very well. With the sun just outside the field of view, there was very little flare and loss of contrast. I also make 12x18 prints, and this lens handles them easily. The body is going to be the limiting factor (refering to digital bodies).
Warning: once you use "L" glass, you are going to be spoiled. You may not settle for consumer lenses anymore, although some non-L lenses are quick good from what I read.
Customer Review: Buy this lens today. You'll thank yourself.
Summary: 5 Stars
First off, if you're a pro with a bag full of $2000 lenses, you're probably not interested in this, the 2nd least expensive "L" lens.
Secondly, if you're going to compare this to a bunch of $2000 lenses, you're barking up the wrong tree.
My guess is the typical buyer of this lens is someone who is taking their first tentative step into the world of "expensive" glass. This lens is made to order for you. It simply blows "ordinary" lenses out of the water. If you're used to the kit lens that came with your camera, or a 3rd party lens you got for $150, you are going to love this lens. You'll find yourself taking more pictures, taking time to frame your shots and basically caring about what you shoot. This is a lens that is far more talented than you are, and you'll strive to rise to its level.
I cannot say enough good things. The sharpness ROCKS. The saturation and contrast are absolutely fantastic. The focus is instantaneous and silent, and usually dead on. And the red stripe looks really cool! :)
Its heavy, and built like a tank. If you're looking for a lightweight, this ain't it. It is lighter than most other "L" lenses, however, and not too bad to carry.
Drop the 700 bucks, and go out and take some serious photographs.
Customer Review: 17-40mm vs. 16-35mm, both Super, but what's the difference?
Summary: 5 Stars
Well, besides a whole bucket full of money, one of them lets you take photos in lower light, okay, that's obvious. The 16-35mm is a bit heavier, but not so you'd notice, unless maybe you were carrying it around all day, without eating and you're a bit over the hill. So why pay the extra money, unless, of course, you do a lot of shooting in the early morning and late evening?
Maybe you shouldn't, because I've been doing a lot of photo taking with both, film and digital, and as one would expect from the "L" lenses, the photos are crisp and sharp. In fact I keep I the 17-40 on the camera I carry around all day, you know, the one I might leave on the table in a restaurant when I got to the restroom. It's a lot less money to lose to someone looking for a five finger discount. However, my gal pal Sara and I take a lot of early morning photos. She shoots old houses, and she never, ever goes out without the 16-35mm. She swears by it, loves it, sometimes I think better than me.
So there is a difference, I'm the kind of person that could happily live with less expensive lense, Sara is not. However they both deliver gorgeous photos. You can't go wrong if the lense has that red circle around it.
Customer Review: Great Wide Angle L lens
Summary: 5 Stars
I have both 16-35 and this 17-40. I end up using 17-40 lot more than 16-35. No doubt, 16-35 is a better lens, faster, wider, but this only helps in one condition: indoor shots where flash and tripod is prohibited. I bump into this situation when I was in the Hearst Castle and 16-36 helped a lot. Another situation is indoor-event without flash, but not too often you'll bump into this situation. Maybe funeral service inside the church?
Again, these situations are rare. Usually I use the wide angle lens for landscape shots or group photos. For landscape, I'm not going to use f/2.8 anyway. For group photos, it's another no-no.
Therefore, 17-40 is a more reasonable choice. Again, it's F/4, but you don't have too many chances to use f/2.8 anyway. It's half the cost and it's lighter.
Many first-time users of DSLR face the situation of buying a wide angle lens. I highly recommend 17-40. It's one of the cheapest L lens but you'll end up with much better pictures. The results are instant. Of course, if you have enough cash, buy 16-35, but you'll find yourself reducing aperture most of the time, which, isn't that what 17-40 can do?