Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
330 of 334 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
My walkaround lens, November 2, 2006
The walkaround lens. This very topic leads to a heated discussion among DSLR photographers.
First, determine your budget, focal length, and aperture needs.
If you frequently find yourself zooming out to get everything in a frame, you will want a wide angle lens such as this. If you frequently find yourself zooming in, this is not the lens for you. On a full frame body such as Canon EOS 5D, this lens becomes ULTRA wide angle. On an APS-C crop body such as Digital Rebel XTi (which I used for this review), it becomes MEDIUM wide angle. But thanks to 1.6x crop factor, this lens expands to more usable 35mm equivalent focal length of 27 to 64mm.
Second, audition the lens if you can.
By definition, a walkaround lens should be relatively portable. At 1.1 lbs., Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is neither super light nor neck breakingly heavy. In fact, it weighs almost the same as Digital Rebel XTi -- really nice balance. The lens feels very solid with supreme build quality that only L-series lenses offer. Although this lens is weather proof and therefore sealed against liquid and dust, I strongly recommend getting a 77mm filter to protect the front lens element. With it, this lens is made to last.
In terms of looks and feel, it doesn't get much better. Its rubberized full-time inner focus manual ring USM focuses smoothly, quietly, and quickly. Since it's inner focus, the lens will not extend beyond its metal casing whether you zoom in or out. The focus window shows focusing distance from 0.28 meter (0.92 feet) to infinity. The focal length marker indicates 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm. The lens exudes quality from tip to tip.
You may tolerate heavier lens or may not mind lesser build quality of cheaper lenses. A walkaround lens will be used very often, so make sure you will be comfortable with it.
This lens is famous for saturated color and deep contrast. Its images are simply stunning. At 17mm wide angle, barrel distortion is noticeable but relatively mild. From 24mm to 40mm, its images are distortion free and perfectly suited at capturing people.
Vignetting (corner darkness) is minimal with mild chroma abberrations (color shadows). At f/4 aperture, details become noticeably softer toward the edges. The center region is very sharp and at f/5.6, edges remain fairy sharp. Thanks to 7 diaphragm blades, this lens can produce very nice bokeh at 40mm (blur effects).
One of the most cited weaknesses is the f/4 aperture. In my experience, a bump in the ISO speed and steady hands are all you need to take well focused images indoor. On the other hand, if you are shooting with very little amount of light, you might wish for f/2.8 or image stabilizer. Although the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is just 1 stop, my other lens, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (too heavy to be my walkaround lens) easily outperforms in such challenging situations. But by and large, I was not handicapped by the f/4 aperture.
Some of the main competitions (sorted by price):
- Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro: Good zoom range with macro, and generally solid performance if you can get a good sample. It does suffer from a bit slow focus mechanism, soft corner, and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC: Very good value for f/2.8 aperture, but Tamron's 17-50mm is a bit better lens overall. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: This "traveler's lens" has a wider focal range than most wide angle lenses (widest among Canon) and is equipped with an image stabilizer. While it is a Jack of many trades, it is the master of none. Every lenses on this list will perform better at particular focal length. Then again, none of the lenses on this list has as wide focal range. It is famous for extreme barrel distortion at 17mm and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF): This is the most direct competitor. It takes sharper images with faster aperture while costing less. Both the build and focus mechanism are significantly worse, but should be good enough for many. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM: This is THE reference, if you can afford it. Its images have razor sharp details and great performance all around (minus vignetting, which is typical of EF-S lenses). The build quality is worse than L-series but still pretty good. Works only with EF-S mount. This is the best EF-S lens hands down.
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM: One of the most expensive wide angle zoom lenses. It's larger and heavier, but has f/2.8 aperture.
This is how Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM stacks up.
Pros:
- Among the very best build quality.
- Excellent, buttery smooth, super fast front-focus system.
- Top notch color and contrast. Very sharp center resolution.
- Almost non-existent vignetting, generally low distortion, and well controlled chroma abberrations.
- Ideal weight and size for walkaround purpose
Cons:
- Edge softness at f/4 aperture.
- Narrower focal length than most competing lenses.
- Slower than some third party lenses.
All in all, this is an excellent wide angle walkaround lens. It may not offer the most bang for the buck, but if you value full frame compatibility (EF lens mount) and excellent build quality, this is the default choice. This lens comes with a nice pouch and a lens hood. I find the hood to be somewhat ridiculously shaped and because the lens is resistant to flare, I do not use it often when shooting outdoor.
|
|
|
205 of 213 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Only decent in comparison to other L's, October 31, 2006
(I really want to give this lens 3.5 stars)
This review is written from the viewpoint of someone whom has used many L-class lenses, and as such will be a little harder on this piece of glass. If you've never used a Canon L lens and you purchase this one, I guarantee you'll be quite pleased with your purchase. But this review is really meant for those who own other L glass pieces and are looking into adding this one to their collection.
The good:
L glass tends to mean some heavy-weight glass, however this lens is surprisingly light and small. In fact, it is the smallest/lightest L zoom Canon makes. You find yourself more likely to take it to places where there may not be much of a projected photo opportunity or where there is a higher risk in damaged gear due to its unobtrusive size. It really is one of those few L lenses that you can casually walk around with and not garner much for attention.
As with all L-glass, this ones very solidly constructed. It has a simplicity of design that minimizes risk to moving parts from shock. It is well-balanced and just feels like a tight glass package.
The lens performs very well in color and contrast. Natural saturation is excellent, easily on par with the L expectation. The color and saturation of this lens sits somewhere between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8.
I initially thought that the zoom range would be constraining (a mere 23mm of range?), but in reality the lens is fairly versatile. This especially true on a 1.6 FOVCF body (20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, etc), where the range is more like that of a normal zoom, at the cost of the super-wide advantage. The lens handles pretty much all composition tasks except those of a telephoto or 1.0x macro. You won't be disappointed in the zoom versatility.
Price. This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available. For those whom are very accustomed to purchasing/collecting L lenses, anything under a thousand dollars really is considered on the cheap side. If this is your first L purchase, this lens or the 70-200mm F/4L are your places to start.
Flare. There's practically none.
Cons: (there's only one, but its a biggie)
Sharpness. This is by far my biggest qualm, and what makes me frown a little at this lens for its L designation. It's nowhere near that of other lenses. One of the biggest uses for this lens is landscape photography, where objects appear very distant and sharpness becomes crucial. 24mm at f/4 on this lens is easily less sharp than 24mm at f/2.8 (!) on the 24-70 f/2.8L. And as a little investigation will reveal, this probelm is also somewhat appearant on the 16-35mm f/2.8L (although it seems less pronounced). 100% crop comparisons of this lens to other lenses such as the 180mm f/3.5L is simply a joke.
Other:
This lens utilizes slight movement of the front element, so it is advised by pretty much everyone that a UV filter be purchased (77mm filter size). I add to that by saying: buy only the Multi-coated from B+W or Hoya if you're shooting digital. Yes, they're usually somewhere around eighty bucks, but spending forty on something that will bring you ghosting/contrast woes is not worth it.
The hood of this lens is hilarious. It's almost five inches wide and maybe an inch and a half tall. I simply don't use it (I can't geometrically see how it helps. I think it may be something of a feel-good-hood if you're not consiencious about flare.) The lens is less conspicuous without it and I really don't have a flare problem.
Conclusion
I'm really not satisfied with the sharpness issue. It seems at least somewhat appearant on almost all Canon's lenses below 35mm. (Except for the 24-70 and 24-105, which is odd). I think they're still working out their wide-angle formula. Appearantly, the new 17-55mm f/2.8 is supposed to be sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35, so they are probably on the right track of improving the issue.
In the end, if you've never used L glass and are considering this one, buy it. You will be very pleased, I assure you. But if you own a good deal of L glass, you may want to hold off from this one and wait for Canon to improve their optics. You may find yourself like me, using other L pieces and only using this one when I absolutely have to.
|
|
|
147 of 153 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Film Users Alert - It's Not Just For Digital SLRs, October 14, 2004
For years, I have been using my 28-70 f:2.8 Canon zoom as my "normal" lens. It is sharp (Oh baby is it!) and at 2.8,fast enough for just about any pro or serious amateur. But there were plenty of times I needed a little more coverage than the 28MM focal length provided. Since most of my work is with long-lens and fast (and expensive) zooms, I couldn't pony up the bucks for Canon's superwide f2.8 zoom. When I saw the price on the 17-40MM lens and the fact that it was the "L" flavor with pro glass, I bought it immediately. I've had it for about a year and I have already sold several pictures - published in glossy magazines with picky photo editors. And I trust it to give me sharp pictures, even at the extreme settings - wide open and at the 17MM end. You have to remember to always use the weird looking but effective lens hood to control flare and as with any very wide lens, look at the edges of the frame (your feet could be in every picture!) It's light, good enough to use as your normal lens and with their new 70-300 IS DO lens could make for an amazing and compact travel kit. So while Canon's lens experts probably built this one for the growing digital crowd, as a film user I think it's the bargain of the year and is in my camera bag every time I go on assignment. I suggest that you get a good quality "thin" UV filter and polarizer and you will be set to explore the exciting world of ultra-wide photography.
Important update: I recently returned from an assignment to Monte Carlo to test drive sports cars. Part of the deal was to get thrill rides from a pro driver up and down the French mountains above Monaco. Armed with my 17-40MM an EOS 1V, 540 flash, and Velvia 50, I clicked off a whole roll of film during my turn in the passenger's seat. The magazine editor called me when he saw the slides and said that the shots in the car were the "strongest images" in the shoot. Yup, the lens is that good.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
