Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens

like most people i agonised between this lense and spending the extra money on a 16-35 2.8...for the type of photography i do (manly landscape) i would rairly use f/4 let alone f/2.8. i find the lense pin sharp, love the results, its well made and light enough to take on long trips away...

The Canon 17-40mm USM L series lens is probably a good choice for a semi-professional to professional in the field looking for a high performance optical lens. It is nearly half the price of the 16-35mm, but not too much of a difference apart from the apertures.

The lens is a joy to use, fast and responsive and quite light.


I will recommend the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens as a general purpose lens for those with a 1.6x FOVCF (field of view crop factor) camera that want the best image quality for a reasonable price. The focal length range of this lens is not big, but on a 1.6x body, the full-frame equivalent 27.2-64mm lens can handle many general purpose needs. Good full-frame compatibility and performance make the 17-40 L an especially good lens for those thinking of upgrading to such a body in the future.

Having got a Canon 30D with kit lens I wanted to upgrade immediately. The kit lens was the old non-IS version, and not up to much. Initially I forked out for the 17-85 IS USM EF-S lens but was quickly very disappointed with the results and the build quality of the lens. After all, I had sold out of a very decent Pentax set-up and was struggling to find anything to match the quite affordable Pentax DA 16-45 f/4.

After reading a LOT of reviews and posting a lot of questions on various digicam forums I went for the 17-40L. Although the reach of the lens wasn't as good as others, the image quality, colour saturation and relatively low CA, not to mention the build quality, was a winner for me. I picked up a well used (with a broken distance scale window) for around £330.

Build quality IS excellent, but heavy. At this weight and size some would imagine it should be a far longer-reach lens. The 77mm thread can prove to be expensive for filters, but not if you shop around. I also love the image quality and the fact it's a constant f/4 lens. The reach isn't an issue for me - I shoot a lot of landscapes and mostly use the wide end of the lens. Others will find it is too limiting.

In conclusion, get this lens at a decent used price and you won't regret it. You're getting L quality (with the coveted red ring), weatherproofed build quality and excellent image quality combined with a constant f/4 aperture. The only negative is the weight and the reach - but if you're looking at the 17-40 you already know that anyway.

Most of my recent photos have been taken with the 17-40L (and the 50mm f1.8). If you want to look at some real-life shots using this lens feel free to take a look at www.flickr.com/photos/paultomlin - nothing award winning but it gives true, real-life examples of what to expect from this lens.

I’m an enthusiast with a Canon 5D full frame DSLR camera; this Canon 17-40mm wide angle “L” lens is light, sharp and very fit for purpose. I would not hesitate to recommend this lens to any photographer, although I think the pro’s would go for the 16-35mm f/2.8 version.

It is excellent lens if you use a full frame camera as I do Canon 5D but would be nice if they did one say 15-50mm (fish eye) it depending on the person but still a very good lens by canon . James A Bond

re canon EF 17-40mm f/4: USM Lens - purchased to complete the range of lens for my studies. I haven't used it yet, but if the quality of images I am getting from my other Canon lens are to go by, then I need not worry.

Thank -you
M

Great focal range for work I do simmilar to 50mm prime in some cases but with a bit more flexibility on composition good quality for my price range as do not need to go below f4 at this focal length.Very pleased with the quality at the time of purchase would have cost around £700 to £800 although new price now has dropped a bit but still more than I paid.

No dislikes at all.

I bought this for my new Canon 50D, I previously had a Tamron 18-50 mm f2:8 which I have been very impressed with. Alright I have lost 1 stop of light and some of the focal range 40-50 but I am very impressed with the build quality and sharpness of the Canon lens. It is quieter and faster in the AF. I would also say that the Canon has a greater contrast making it appear sharper.
The Tamron has produced some great prints but this new breed of cameras with increased pixel density means that lenses that were great in the 20/30/40D show their limitations on the 50D.
Because of the APS size sensor there are few choices in a wide angle equivalent to 28 mm on 135 format so if you buy a 50D be prepared to part with some serious money to get lenses that will extract the maximum from the camera sensor.
This is the "budget" lens for this purpose otherwise expect to pay about £700 for the 18-55 mm f2.8 EFS, but remember if you go full frame (5D) you will have to get rid of the lens as well. The 17-40 covers full frame so it remains a keeper even if it then becomes very wide.
I have a 70-200 mm F4 L (non IS) and that has always been my favorite lens up till now, but it has some serious competition. Both lenses fell great, smooth zoom, full time manual focus (you can make minor changes without going to MF) and metal construction just like it used to be.

I didn't actually get to buy this one yet, there was a mistake, but I had tried it before on 30D, so there we go.

I took some photos of Clifton bridge with it at 17mm on 30D. The colour was far superior to my non-L lens I had at the time, it was very sharp corner to corner, and I couldn't see any CA. Mild barrel distortion was visible, but it could be expected at such an ultrawide focal length for a zoom lens. The weight is fairly moderate, about half a kilo, which is excellent for travelling light. The lens is getting rave reviews, the only downside of it must be lack of IS.

If you need one, go and get it now!