|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on July 19, 2023 Pros: Value for money, focal range, light, sharpness, internal zoom (or almost) Cons: TA edges, aberrations, stabilization (but at this price...), CAP Opinion: A well-made, solid, tested optics (depopulated since 2003), with a really good value for money. The focal range allows different photographic possibilities. Leave a little work on the aberrations and, to have a sharpness on the whole frame, the aperture must be closed around f / 8. But if you don't have to take home the work in a nanosecond and you can spend a few more minutes posting, it's a really good lens! Reason why, perhaps, it is not the most suitable lens for the professional who works intensely. The hood is impressive, it's true, but using the lens mainly on a tripod is not a factor that creates particular problems for me and aesthetically I must say that I do not mind. Another interesting feature in my opinion is that, by changing the focal length, the barrel does not protrude beyond the length of the lens, reducing dust infiltration and maintaining a practically identical balance and footprint from 17mm to 40mm. However, if I have to find a mole, especially taking into account that it is an L series, it is the cap: with the hood inserted it is very uncomfortable to put / remove. For comparison, the 50mm f / 1.4 (therefore not the most extraordinary lens from Canon) has a much more "intelligent" cap, with the opening in the center instead of at the edges, so as not to have to rub your fingers on the hood, which in the 17-40 has a velvet that does not get along very well with the fat of the skin. The same problem I found on the 70-200 f/4 L. They are small but really annoying, especially for the series with the red stripe. |
 | sent on March 30, 2023 Pros: price, flare resistance, AF, colors, overall sharpness, dimensions, weight Cons: sharpness at the extreme edges at TA, slight distortion and vignetting but all solvable with correction on LR Opinion: Bought for interior photos and for travel lens gave me a lot of joy. Paid very little, they practically sell it off. It has excellent flare resistance that I can leave the hood at home (it is also bulky). It has compact dimensions and weighs very little. Beautiful colors and fast in the pursuit of people. The sharpness in the center and middle center is very good even at TA, the extreme edges instead must be recovered by closing at least at f8. The distortion and vignetting don't bother me because I fix them on LR. |
 | sent on January 02, 2023 Pros: One of the best lenses for landscaping Cons: Not suitable for high-resolution sensors Opinion: Excellent lens for landscaping and architecture. It is a dated lens, but on the used it is stable at about € 400 and for this price there is nothing comparable for Full Frame. Sharp at f / 8, beautiful sunstar, holds the flare excellently, very light, good focal range, little distortion easily accommodated in post, works well with filters. I use it on 6D mark II and on my sensor I do not find it lacking, certainly at f / 4 the edges are not great, but at f / 8 it is excellent from the center to the edges. Yes, the new ones are certainly much sharper, but they weigh and cost more, so evaluate yourself. The only real flaw is the chromatic aberration that can become annoying in scenes with great excursion from shadows to lights, but only sometimes it was difficult for me to fix it in post, 90% just apply the profile on Lightroom and it's done. In my opinion it is not suitable for sensors from 30MP upwards, but for the 24MP in my opinion it is still excellent. |
  | sent on October 21, 2022 Pros: Price used, colors, backlight resistance, filters Cons: Sharpness, AF, unstabilized Opinion: Probably the least sharp L-series lens and with the worst AF ever had. The sharpness was inconsistent at virtually any aperture, and the AF was not accurate. I specify that I bought it new and not used, maybe there is variability between specimens. Today it is used at a very attractive price and if you have the opportunity to try it and see that it is a good copy (good sharpness at f / 8) take it. To take pictures of landscapes with the Sun in the field will not disappoint you for its resistance to flares. It is filterable with 77mm filters. It weighs little and takes up little space in the bag. My advice? If you can save money and aim for a 16-35 L IS, if instead you find it used at 200 euros, verify its correctness and then take it. |
 | sent on July 13, 2022 Pros: Autofocus, flare resistance, global yield, colors, construction, fantastic black and white rendering, unbeatable value for money. Cons: Sometimes a bit limited because of the openness. Opinion: Exceptional lens, an all-rounder practically on both Full Frame and APS-C, a lens to always take into consideration, excellent wide angle, versatile and with a light, solid and comfortable construction in the rings, a truly battle autofocus with an incredible management of the flare through its elements, you will almost never miss a shot if you have performing engines! Beautiful colors, deep especially if you work with landscapes in shades of the sky, but also in macro, also offering a blur soft enough to be an initial F4 ... It is not as sharp as its successors and its big brothers okkey, but it offers a sharpness already from F4 acceptable, closed obviously then becomes much sharper and manageable, totally closed then becomes pure poetry ... Now searchable even at 370-400 euros is stra recommended! |
 | sent on August 03, 2021 Pros: Sharpness, transportability, internal zoom, focal range, new life with Sony body Cons: Hood so not very functional that you leave it at home Opinion: Fantastic lens and very sharp in the center. The sharpness at the edges is good from f8 and therefore great for landscapes on easel. The focal range makes it less specialized than the 16 35. The use as a handyman and the only travel lens adapted on a full frame Sony body where the AF does not miss a beat in all modes, the failure to stabilize the lens is compensated by that of the sensor and in crop mode it can become a 25-60 if necessary. |
 | sent on April 26, 2021 Pros: Construction, internal AF USM, compact. Cons: Specialist landscape optics Opinion: Hate and love with this perspective. I tried to use it for different photographic genres, as I used the 24-70 IS L f4. Nothing could be further from the wrong. It's a landscape-optimized lens. Diaphragms in which it expresses excellent sharpness from f8 to f11. Excellent flare resistance. He prefers a careful study of framing, preferably on an easel. |
 | sent on April 20, 2021 Pros: Great for scenery and some street. Cons: nobody Opinion: Great on any sensor. For outdoor excursions, landscapes and a few streets you will be widely appreciated. Excellent colors and details. For more than 15 years he has stood up to the most famous L's and other brands saving a lot of money. Very light, to be kept as a second or third choice in the backpack. Undeaworthyly devalued. All doing landscape that marked an era. |
 | sent on March 01, 2021 Pros: Construction, weight and dimensions, internal zoom, flare resistance, excellent AF Cons: unsportsmanlike lampshed, decent sharpness from f8 onwards Opinion: thanks to the transition from aps-c to FF I had to reevaluate this goal, I used it with satisfaction as an excellent everything to do on the 50d, now on FF I can not find a right place, too wide for my photographic tastes and too soft on the sides at the wider openings, decent shots are brought home only if it closes at f8, so on FF it is no longer a whole do , but a very specialized optics and I am not a lover of landscapes, but more inclined to travel reportage I preferred to exchange it canon 28 2.8 is, a middle ground regarding the focal point much more useful for my purposes. |
user215205  | sent on January 16, 2021 Pros: Global optical yield, construction quality, transportability Cons: Maybe the lampshed, definitely monumental. Opinion: Used for many years, excellent yield, both on full frame and on aps-c, very good already at TA, improves a lot by closing a stop, given the focal points at stake the stabilizer is useless (personally I find it useless, and also harmful, on any optics, an optical group that shakes can NOT benefit the quality of the image). Quite light and compact, it was, along with the 50/1.4 the lens I used the most on a digital one. |
 | sent on August 19, 2020 Pros: Sharpness, build quality, smooth dials, no barrel coming in and out during the zummate, no rotation during the maf, lightness, price, fast and precise safe maf, fixed f4. Cons: Sharpness, lack of is, difficult to resell it except giving it away, huge original lampshade, with time and a little practice you fall in love with it. Opinion: It's been about a year since I've been looking for this lens since I'm a fan and it took me a while to get a clear idea of the potential of this goal. Permuted with a canon 50 1.4 that on my eos 1200d gave problems of precision of maf while on the 6dii of bought went a bomb, I was immediately amazed amazed at the construction quality of the L series. Coming home I do a few f4 shots inside and I realize that as sharpness is not so much better than my 18-55 and moreover it is not even stabilized, I try to lift the flash integrated in the machine and I notice that from 17 to 24-25 mm of focal is cast a shadow of the same lens on the image, from there another bad surprise. I try to resell it immediately, given the bitterness in the mouth left, but after about 6 months of negotiations tests carried out on the field and attempts to permute with other objectivists it seems that this 17 40 does not please anyone and still remains in my kit. So I'm going to buy a sled flash (a fully manual lithium yongnuo but that makes you forget about the battery problem) and start playing it a little bit. Bammmm, surprise, the photos took another turn, the difference in niness with 18 55 are net, and from there I start to cheer me up. I continue to play it even during the day, I take it to sea, in the mountains, even during wet days and to my surprise does not miss a shot, maf always precise and fast enough, the lens does not behave very well even under 40 degrees of the beach and dials are still new as well as when I bought Obviously to reach a sharp appreciable at least for me you have to close at least to f5.6. At the end of the story I decided to keep this optics and not to sell it because of its reliability, nn misses a shot even on my small 1200d. Just to complete the picture, I use the reflex to take photos in the family and the 17mm l I chose for the interior that on apsc I find them quite wide and I never felt the need to drop below 17. Finally using this 17 40 on apsc nn I notice no excessive distortion problem neither of vignette nor loss of sharpness at the edges. For those who want to have a reliable, light and low-priced optics to replace at 18 55 I highly recommend it. |
 | sent on July 26, 2020 Pros: Sharpness, build quality, price, Af Cons: Not stabilized, bulky lampshade, 17mm but maybe better 16? Opinion: Very good target, really good. Used you take it little by little. It makes the 24 70 f4 almost smearing in terms of sharpness. At 17 mm there is a certain distortion (not excessive anyway) but I think it is inevitable on one side and on the other the effect of the distortion may not necessarily make the shot un appreciateable. Maybe the 16 30 has less distortion and goes to 16, but we have at least a price difference of 200 in the used. It's not worth it at least for me. Also because I think it compensates for these small flaws in terms of build quality and image. The Af is fine. The lack of stabilization is a disadvantage compared to other targets especially for shots that require more exposure, perhaps for interiors. With tripods or monopods of course takes away the problem and in the lower focal lengths the problem practically disappears. Bulky lampshade but notice that can also be mounted another type (I put the one of the 24 70) With canon 6d a great pairing. I also tried it with sony a6000 and adapter ef and II viltrox and it works really well af fast. |
 | sent on March 30, 2020 Pros: construction, constant f4, tropicalized, internal zoom, backlight resistance, price of used,af Cons: vignette, bulky lampshade, lack stabilization Opinion: taken used at the modest figure of 400 euros combined with the sony a7r and canon 6d, a all-rounder lens that immediately impressed me for its resistance to the backlight, but especially for the construction (a real "tank"), I used it in any situation and I assure you that water and dust are not a problem. The dials are quite fluid, the lampshade is perhaps a little too bulky (if it can be a defect!). Ultrasonic focus is a real bijou, it works wonders; there is no stabilization, but honestly I have never missed it. At 17 mm it turns out to be unclear at the edges unless you use a rather closed diaphragm, it improves considerably by increasing the focal excursion; true, vignette a lot and the distortion stands out, but it is solved without any problem in post production. In conclusion, a great handyman that I highly recommend for landscape/architectural photos, and to all those who want to make a nice leap of quality without spending a fortune, why not, maybe replacing the 18 55.... |
 | sent on August 29, 2019 Pros: Lightweight, diameter filters,build quality from L series Cons: Quality you have edges not excel Opinion: I do not like the wide-angles too much, spread them use them without falling into the trivial or obvious shot, especially for a half key like me. Usually with the 24mm of 24-105 I do everything. But in some situations having something more driven is definitely better and so I'm diving into the purchase of this 17-40. Never was the pulse decency more a good. Acceptable quality, good in the center decade you have edges providing a somewhat kneaded and in-detail image. Improves by closing the diafhramma but still the difference remains. Distortion is noted as the important vignette but these are things that are settled in a click.erto Now on the market there is better but at a higher cost, it depends on the needs and use that you want to make. For me seen the possibility to use the slab filters, for me essential, the robustness and reduced weight as well as the footprint thanks to the internal zoom and not least the price at which I found it, I could not have asked for better. He was a great companion on my last trip and will certainly be in the future |
user160348 | sent on April 18, 2019 Pros: Weight, ergonomics, value for money, diameter screw filters, sturdiness, internal Zoom, AF silent and fast, general image rendering. Cons: Few and after years of intensive use, I do not find, apart, if you want to be really picky, a slight flare in situations really extreme. Opinion: I have read about all the colors on this lens, I bought it again at the beginning 2014, as in practice that should be normal, I immediately made the micro-adjustment of optics on my camera bodies. The result is that for 5 years I accompany and works every day (or almost) always satisfying my expectations and those of customers. Flare does not exist in the vast majority of cases, apart from some really extreme, but these are cases where the majority of other wide angles would already be KO, lightweight, robust construction typical of L series, AF motor really fast and quiet, Sharp both at the center and at the edges, I use it practically always between F8 and F11 and in rare cases that its at full aperture the result does not disappoint me at all. What to say more, I wanted to replace it with the new 16-35 F4 IS, but winning team does not change and will remain with me for quite some time. |
 | sent on February 02, 2019 Pros: Weight, ergonomics, quality/price ratio (used), internal zoom, robustness Cons: Low-light, quality loss at F4, bulky lens hood Opinion: I've been using this lens for over a year, initially I used it on a 1100d then with APSC sensor and it proved a good handyman; However I discovered its true qualities when I started using it on a 5d; I think it's a suitable lens for FF SLR where it proves great for landscapes, street and travel photos. The weight and the construction are balanced with a sturdy machine body. From the point of view of quality reflects exactly what is expected, excellent image quality (not excellent), not too bright (F4) and at full aperture loses sharpness (if only a little), AF fast. Advised the purchase used (with maximum expenditure of €400 you make a bargain). |
 | sent on January 25, 2019 Pros: Weight, dimensions (without lens hood), AF silent and Fast (USM), F. 4.0 constant, good overall yield also at the edges between F. 5.6 and F. 11, used price. Cons: Bulky lens hood, but a lens hood for this lens could not be less cumbersome, slight drop in sharpness at the edges under F. 5.6 (but without dramas), lack of stabilization, but stabilization on such an objective is useful, not indispensable (and Then it always depends on personal needs). Opinion: I have this lens for about six months, got used to €350., and I'm very satisfied with it, so as to use it as standard zoom also on the Sony Alpha 7 via Sigma MC11 adapter. Recommended for those who, like me, do not have special requirements that require the presence of a stabilizer or greater brightness of the lens. |
 | sent on July 09, 2018 Pros: Handyman for APS-C, flare inseistenti, weight, quality/price Cons: The huge hood... if it's a flaw, sharpness at the edges Opinion: I recently took this used lens. Mounted for now on APS-C is a wonderful handyman who finally replaced the 18-55.... What a leap of quality! Used in the mountains in any light situation, not even a reflex! Light compared to other lenses of the L series, mounted fixed on my reflex, I take it everywhere and not a mistake. |
| sent on June 25, 2018 Pros: Relatively inexpensive, build quality L, excellent at closed diaphragms, light and compact, 77 filters Cons: At TA does not scream at the miracle, less than the 16-35 F4 is Opinion: On FF Canon is the only economic objective ultra suitable a little ' to everything: interiors, landscapes, etc... Among other things its cost on the used is slightly lowering. I recommend it because it is good quality optical and constructive, and while not equaling the modern character of the 16-35 F4 IS (which I took in its place), I have good memory. Obviously it gives the best of itself to at F8, as written everywhere. |
 | sent on June 24, 2018 Pros: Lightness, focal length, colors, sharpness Cons: Distortion at focal wide-angle thrusts, bulky lens hood Opinion: For months it is my lens of reference, it is light, compact enough (except the hood), has a perfect focal range, reaching up to 40mm allows you to do a bit of street. The 17mm are fundamental in the squares and natural landscapes, even if there is a fairly marked distortion of the vertical lines. Max Aperture of F4 that does not help at night, but if that type of photography does not fall into your interests, then go straight to buy this lens, it will amaze you. It's an L series but pretty cheap, which doesn't hurt. You will hardly be disappointed. Very nice colors, sharpness in the center really good (at F8 or F9 is fantastic), at the edges there is a slight drop, but for me it is negligible. The only flaw is the hood, cumbersome though petal, and do not think not to mount it because otherwise it might suffer to do. In any case, I would buy another 100 times.. Great!! |
 | sent on May 08, 2018 Pros: Construction, compactness, constant opening on all focal lengths, L-series, price Cons: Nobody Opinion: I got to own both the 16-35 F4 is USM and the 16-35 F 2.8 USM, and I just missed this wide angle for ff..... Impeccable construction from L series, handy, light and compact, soft but very precise rings. On 6dmk2 it performs fine and has a good balanced. I have not found all those flaws of which many talk about it, namely the dark or pasty edges, indeed I have to say instead that the details are good from the center you have edges. Maybe it's also about the optical correction and aberration in the room of the 6dmk2.... Maybe the colors are a little bit cold. Closed at F8 is really a very good lens. When compared to the 16-35 F4 is USM is missing the stabilizer but it is not a big problem, weighs much less and costs roughly 400 euros less. The lens hood is similar to the 16-35 F 2.8 A Little big and comes out a lot from the edges of the lens, but nothing to worry about. The 77 diameter filters are almost a constant on the L series, giving you the ability to use the same filter on more lenses by going from 17 mm until you get to 200mm. Rated 9. Recommended. |
 | sent on March 27, 2018 Pros: Constructive quality, sharpness from f8 onwards, heaviness, colors, af, tropicalization Cons: Huge hood, sharpness at the edges Opinion: I bought it a few days to replace a 10-18 and the pace I did, although so far has had little opportunity to put it to the test, it seems more than discrete.rnLo mounted on APS-C (Canon 100D) but to part of the multiplication factor that makes it more a handyman than a real wide angle, you have the feeling of having in your hands a lens so much stuff.rnThe build quality is immediately denoted by the heaviness, shooting from f8 up sharpness becomes remarkable and the colors ottima.rnFrancamente I find it difficult to find fault, if we want to call them, the only ones can be the hood provided that is really giant and a very light (!) loss of sharpness at the edges. |
 | sent on March 27, 2018 Pros: L-series lens, tropicalized, fluid ferrules, weight, F4 on all focal lengths, colors and sharpness in the center Cons: hood in fact a little cumbersome, sharpness at the edges (but it is a wide-angle), not stabilized (but not a problem), F4 (but clear already in TA) Opinion: One of my first L series lenses canon, absolutely happy to have it as it has a bang of merits and very few defects.rnColori in my opinion warm enough (perhaps to heat slightly but nothing that), sharpness at full aperture and throughout the focal excursion. Better to have a bright zoom (2.8) but with little sharpness at TA or a zoom darker but clear already immediately? I say the second, especially on a wide angle.rnrnNon is stabilized but being a wide angle I do not need it. Extremely fluid and very tropicalized dials complete a lens that will remain in my kit for a very long time.rnrnAssolutely satisfied. |
 | sent on December 03, 2017 Pros: Price of used, construction quality, sharpness, quiet, general reliability Cons: At the edges it loses sharpness (nothing critical), a really cumbersome hood Opinion: A tank! I really do not know how else to define it.rnIt is used at honest prices and has a very good build quality (the barrel does not extend out), I have used it everywhere (saltiness, snow, water, dust) and has never (and I say never!) accused a shot, always fast and responsive when needed.rnThe sharpness is good at F / 4 and becomes excellent if closed a couple of stops, in the edges loses a little 'but the situation is not as disastrous as I read from some reviews, withstands the flare, the ring nuts are very fluid and pleasant to use. rnAttention to the hood, really bulky! in some situations I had to leave it at home to make room for the optics in the backpack |
 | sent on October 13, 2017 Pros: Optical quality, construction, low weight, price / quality ratio Cons: shades of colors that for my taste needs to be a little "heated" Opinion: Now that I have tried it thoroughly (on FF), the first thing that I have to say is: do not be fooled by the price! Build quality and optics are really good, and the purchase of a used specimen in good condition may prove to be one of the best purchases in a Canon EF kit. The construction is accurate and sturdy, the ferrules are very fluid but stable, and in an ergonomically comfortable position, so better in all respect - for example - those of the excellent 24-70 f4 L IS. The front part does not come out of the barrel, but moves (slightly) inside it: the lens therefore does not vary in length in the zoom range. However, the small space between the moving part and the barrel wall makes it advisable to use a (slim) filter to prevent dust from entering. The sharpness in the center is amazing on the whole excursion and all the diaphragms; the edges are a bit weak at full aperture, but I found them much better than some reviews made meno fear! In fact, in fact, they are not so sinful at f4, and become very resolvable to f8-f11, that is precisely to the diaphragms most used in a zoom like this. At the maximum focal length (40mm) and at f11 the extreme edges of the frame leave speechless. rnThe purple fringing is lurking, and photos taken with this lens are very beneficial, for this, the AC correction in Canon DPP.rnThe flare is incredibly absent even in photos with sun framed or partially hidden. rnThe lens hood is very cumbersome, and I think it also serves very little, so in my case it remains the default at home.rnThe colors are quite saturated, and true to reality, but I found myself often to make them warmer with the manual adjustment of the WB at a computer; comparing the 24-70 f4 L IS is already hotter than his.rnThe lack of stabilizer benefits from the compactness and lightness of the optics, and is not in my opinion a big limit, given that the focal lengths in play and a minimum of craft is still possibleshoot at 1/15 at the minimum focal and at 1/30 at the maximum without risk of blur. In conclusion, I highly recommend this goal, which is certainly one of the "L" most accessible and with the best quality / price ratio. |
 | sent on September 23, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, natural colors, good MAF, tropicalization Cons: It hampers a bit wide but always useful and indispensable ... for the rest nothing relevant. Opinion: Sharpness, warm and natural colors, great and durable texture despite not too much weight for lens volume. No flare or even aberration. Vignetting in the standard sometimes absent entirely. I used it even in the evening and I have to say that it works well above all with the tripod. What to say ... mounted on my 6d is an inseparable friend especially on vacation for the landscape photo. Silent engine and very pleasant focus. Plus it is tropicalized and what I'm concerned about is good. One of the expenses for which I do not regret it. |
 | sent on September 22, 2017 Pros: cost in the used, tank, colors, sharpness at f8 Cons: I do not find it ..... Opinion: bought for the second time, I regretted having sold the first specimen I had, a fantastic optics, very sharp at f8 where it starts to give the best of it in the field of landscaping. very useful in interiors if used on ff, great colors. for what it costs in the use can not be part of a kit! especially for the quality it provided with 100f2 the best optics as a value-for-money ratio. top |
 | sent on September 13, 2017 Pros: definition of flare resistance excellent value for money ratio Cons: nothing important Opinion: I've been using it for work for a few months, I'm fine, not a problem. who complains about the size of the hood, solves this by removing it when it puts the lens on the bag. Using it with a 5d Mk3, the fact that it is tropicalized makes it usable even in bad weather conditions. rnI only had a problem: You pull out the internal screws that connect the zoom ring to the lenses, fixed in half an hour with the help of a tutorial on youtube, is now new. I would re-buy it today. |
 | sent on August 21, 2017 Pros: Versatility - Flare Insensitivity - Weight-Sharpness Cons: Flashy paralight Opinion: I have been doing this for some time; I couldn't help it. The sharpness is excellent in the center of the frame and has some drop to the extremes, especially at 17mm and f4 diaphragm; negligible to me. The focal excursion makes it comfortable both in landscaping and in reportage. It has a non-intrusive and easily correctable distortion. Construction and tropicalization make it usable even in bad weather conditions. I recommend a front filter. |
| sent on July 15, 2017 Pros: Focal, Sharpness, Price, Flare, Weight, Constant Opening Cons: Bulky hood Opinion: My first lens L. Taken for 40d with the intention of switching to FF as soon as possible, it was already far from the 17-85 level I had. Impeccable construction, tropicalization, smoothness of the rings .. another planet in short, and above all for image quality. Once it went to 5d2 it was love, covering wide-angle and standard focuses, sharpness (already notable on the 10MP of the 40d) enhanced by the larger sensor but also denser and more powerful. It's the lens for definite landscapes, a price-quality ratio I think is incomparable. 17mm distortion is so accentuated but soluble with a click, minimal color aberrations, monstrous flare resistance. I only saw flares using a ND1000 Haida and pointing directly against the sun. Angle sharpness is more than acceptable to TA, and improves when closed at more than one stop (perfect from f / 8 af / 11), resulting in a qualityserious; Of excellent angle angle image. Towards the 40mm, it loses a touch of sharpness across the entire frame, but to really notice it you have to compare the images close to each other. The only counter is the size of the hood, which doubled (or nearly) the diameter of the optic, and forced to sacrifice a lot of space in the backpack and makes a nightmare the decision of what optics to bring if you want to get out of the light and like me , It is considered indispensable. However at 17mm the field angle is wide and if you want the hood that is the compromise to accept, so I do not consider it a significant counter. My concluding opinion is that, given the price, is the best wide-angle zoom in circulation. |
  | sent on July 13, 2017 Pros: Weight, construction, absolute absence of chromatic aberrations, detail and sharpness worthy of the red line Cons: I did not find it noticeable Opinion: Great lens, perfect for even nightly landscapes given the diaphragm f4 on the whole excursion. The construction is solid and the hinges are sliding and soft but not too far to be inaccurate. The price of the used makes it easier to buy but also new is not exaggerated (I took it again). Even with full diaphragm opening does not lose detail in the edges, but its maximum yield is on f9-10. I have not found any controversy until now and I think it's a lens we should all have in the bag at all times |
 | sent on May 31, 2017 Pros: Size, sharpness, flare resistance, construction, price both new and used to be an L series. Cons: Particularly cumbersome lens hood, more wide-angle focal distortion on regular subjects. Opinion: Bought recently on the occasion of the transition to full format, right from the start, unlike everything I had read in the opinions of other users, left me particularly excited about the purchase made. Many talk about corners and edges, but frankly even at full aperture and the focal angle I do not see all this disaster. Already at F. 5.6 is particularly sharp at all focal lengths, closing to F. 8 The maximum yield is obtained. The construction is exceptional, does not vary the length nor during the focalization, much less at the varying of the focal, the right and well suitable for spinning films, excellent resistance to flare, also has tropicalisation of the barrel. The distortion at 17 mm is visible, but can only be annoying with regular contours. The only real drawback I can find is the particular generosity of the size of the hood, which make the bag transport particularly cumbersome and flashy when it is mounted, but all in all it is a detail that goes into the background, Compared to all the pros he can give away. Frankly reading some reviews it seems that he is talking about a different perspective, but perhaps it could be complicit the goodness of the specimen in my possession (but among the Canon L series there are no large tolerances). I recommend on FF, personally I matched it to a fixed 50 STM and a 70-300 Tamron stabilized by obtaining together with a 100 mm f 2.8 Macro A kit all in all still light and transportable and cost-Accessibilissimi, while on APS-C replaces the optics Base 28-70. I agree with others that I will keep maybe forever (at least as long as it works!)-Update January 2018: After having joined my 6d an 80d, I decided to buy a more human lens hood while using the APS-C. The choice fell on the EW-83h of the 24-105 F/4 is L. Strange thing, however, that passing the lens with lens hood mounted by APS-C to full-frame the same no vignette absolutely and is therefore very usable at all focal lengths. |
 | sent on May 23, 2017 Pros: From F8 onwards very clear, very versatile, flare resistance Cons: Unspecified edges only open all the way but acceptable with respect to other wings Opinion: I went to this optic leaving the 12-24 sigma first series, and I do not regret Sigma at all. I thought I miss the 12mm, but using the game it is worth the candle because I gained it in quality, less stretching of the edges and versatility. In fact, the 12-24 was always a widescreen at 24, but this will help you a lot if you need to zombie when needed, without necessarily replacing optics. I think I will never leave it again. |
 | sent on May 15, 2017 Pros: Indestructible, lightweight, handyman Cons: Borders slightly blunted Opinion: In 5 years of canon, with a sony / fuji bracket, I sold and bought everything, even several times, with the exception of 17-40. A lens that accompanies me from the beginning, indispensable on any trip, exit or other, used on apsc (50d), apsh (1d IIn), FF (5d2, sony a7) has never betrayed me. It has resisted improbable situations, mud, snow, rain, sea water ... A focal excursion fit to everything (on apsh then, 22-52, has really become the lens of my dreams) with relatively small distortions, and a Pleasant blur for occasional portraits of 40mm. Obviously, it must be taken for what it is, a reportage lens, you can not expect it to replace a 24-70 or fixed lens. RnExcellent image quality for colors, contrast and general personality, a bit lacking in sharpness on almost all diaphragms, especially on dense sensors, but you get used to it. Compared to 16-35 f4 IS that I was lucky to try losing as an image in terms of sharpness overAnd, of course, for stabilization, on the contrary, it has a building that eats that of the younger brother, and a flare resistance probably unmatched. RnThanks, a purchase that you can not regret. |
 | sent on May 02, 2017 Pros: Exquisite sharpness when closed at 5.6, construction, versatility for focal surfaces, really beautiful colors, price. Cons: Every now and then there is a lack of stabilizer but this is already known when it is bought, so I would not consider it a counter. Opinion: This 17-40 is the best all for apsc and a great wide angle zoom for FF. The construction is solid and robust. Sharpness is excellent at all opening with slightly soft edges, but if closed with a few stops it becomes a blade. It's one of the best l series for price ratio along with 70-200 f4. From time to time you would like to stabilize it but at this price of 400 € you can not want more. It's really a great goal! Perfect for what was conceived ie the landscapes and the street! I was also lucky I found a specimen used at the modest figure of 140 € and was in perfect condition! |
 | sent on April 12, 2017 Pros: Construction, colors, compactness, versatility on both FF aps-c, price, internal zoom. Cons: absence stabilizer (sometimes), edges a little kneaded Opinion: I had the 17-40 used long ago and I really liked it, for other needs I had to get rid of and I recently decided to buy it again (this time again). I must say it is really well built and a view that we must have in your kit, is lightweight and compact .. rnOltretutto my current version (serial number) was built in October 2016, and after several shooting I have to say that I find the most sharp even at the edges compared to optics that I had before. (Or are lucky or canon has made improvements in the construction of 17-40 new version) RNLA I always keep mounted on the 5D so as to have a wide enough driven to 17mm. rnIo recommend it absolutely, is a series L and as such stands for quality and durability, used vehicle lies at very competitive prices (except in some cases where, despite the lens both with several years behind is sold almost at the price of the new, which is about € 700 approximately). rnSe looking for a relatively inexpensive and versatile wide-angle to take it sub FFito or evaluated the 16-35 F / 4 IS if you are interested in the stabilizer. (Not always a fixed is perfect, it is brighter but the possibility to move between 17mm and 40 is a good advantage many times.) |
 | sent on February 15, 2017 Pros: Colors, contrast, focus Cons: Sharpness sometimes not at the top Opinion: My favorite target, purchased for a different use than the classic one, I do not use it for landscape but for street and reportage. A great lens although sometimes I miss the lack of a light stop, especially on dated bodies (5D). The image quality reminds me very much of the beloved 24-70 f / 2.8L first series, although at full aperture the sharpness is not at the same level. Closest diaphragms are excellent. The most impressive aspect is the backlighting and flare resistance, which is the absolute primacy in my optics. All in all a must have that will not easily replace, with a best value for money in the L series. |
| sent on December 24, 2016 Pros: colors, excellent resistance to flare, weight and weather sealing. Cons: little edges engraved TA Opinion: Zoom extraordinarily versatile. I sold it for 16-35 f.4 IS and still regret it. beautiful colors, warm and dreamlike. Resistance against the light and portability. A 17mm cartoon perhaps more than they should, but I do not mind. In my opinion one of the best optics for landscape. I can just say: the cost of the new and the used even more affordable. |
 | sent on November 24, 2016 Pros: Colors.Controluce.Price.Lightness.Focus excursion. Tropicalized. Cons: Sharpness.Vignette.Distortion.That in pp are correct very well. Opinion: Goal that if you know how to use it,from many satisfactions. At 17 mm better use it at diaframmi 11-16.from 20 mm-28 mm.excellent as distortion and sharpness.beautiful colors. I bought it, and hearing here on the forums that they talked about it badly I sold it, then looking at the photos, I saw that all were with beautiful colors, the backlight was beautiful you can photograph the sun, the vignette the pp correcting, range of focal points very useful for panoramas and interiors. Now I'm going to buy it back. And the best Goal that has more Edito's Pick, and then for what it costs used, that you pay it less than a 35/2.well I prefer the 17-40 L. |
| sent on November 23, 2016 Pros: Construction, weather sealing, yield, price Cons: bulky hood Opinion: funny lens, I used combined with the 7D. For the price I (new or used), I do not think we can speak of against. Personally I consider it the best value for money in Canon scene. Definitely perfect if you want a good lens (L), at an equally good price. If you want more, you already know, there is the 16-35 f4. I sold it to upgrade to Olympus. I return to Canon, fall in kit. |
user104607 | sent on November 13, 2016 Pros: Colors and brightness Cons: In a bit soft at the edges Opinion: It was my first series lens L. The use for three years and it has never disappointed me. Sharp, fast, lightweight. Great solidity and value unbeatable. I adore especially for the brightness and colors. Even the angle is great and full frame provides great satisfaction. The buy back a hundred times, as far as the coast and its quality, fully agrees. |
 | sent on September 15, 2016 Pros: Construction, colors, flare-hold. Cons: no one considered the price Opinion: I've got 17-40L a lot. So many times I thought I'd sell it to pick up fixes that replaced the various covered focals and especially an ultra wide bright to photograph the night sky, but then I think of the advantages listed above and that is the great construction (the nickname used by many, carroused, it suits) combined with a great lightness, the warm colors that only Canon's L series has, and above all the great flare-hold. rnToo many times by framing the sun and the lights and I know this goal is a certainty in this regard.rnI also like the blur when snapshot full-aperture, very soft.rnThread sharpness at the center and less to the full sides. Just close a bit and get sharp on the entire frame (F8-F10) .rn |
| sent on September 12, 2016 Pros: L series, lightweight, great value for money Cons: huge hood, slight distortion even if it is not a problem Opinion: Excellent lens that despite the years has a fabulous value for money. Ideal for landscapes and street because f8 on is a blade. At 17 there is a very slight distortion which is not at all troublesome. Conversely mounts a huge hood and suffers a bit of flare. In my opinion it is a great lens that with the new release of the 16-35 mark III is used at a price very competitive. |
 | sent on July 24, 2016 Pros: construction, weather sealing, color rendering, af Cons: stabilization perhaps Opinion: unbreakable lens. Made fast and flawless. Everything in the right place. Weight no exaggeration and quite compact. Best value for the used price. Sadly it lacking stabilization but it's a detail ... Good focal range. Recommended for those who want to switch to ff getting the right balance between quality and expenditure incurred. |
| sent on July 16, 2016 Pros: construction of series L, f, sharpness Cons: maybe f4 Opinion: are many years that I have this, I remember I paid much more than the current market price ... but I've never regretted it, and he never betrayed me. a construction of series L, good sharpness and focus always fast. Now it released 16/35 f4 is they say is much better .... for someone like me who has already this goal I believe that the change is not worth, the only notice that (sometimes) I would consider a counter is the fact that it is not a 2.8 ...... but you can not have it all. |
 | sent on January 30, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, robustness, AF, Weight / Dimensions, Good flare resistance Cons: Distortion 17mm, edges TA Opinion: After the release of 16/35 IS f / 4, this light according to many now seems on Sunset Boulevard ... in my opinion, is still holding bench, calculating the range quality / price .... was my partner travel is on FF that APS-C, and has been able to give great satisfaction small, colors and sharpness are excellent from f / 8 to f / 16, a TA edges are a bit 'mixed, but for the use that I do not matter ... to the landscape on the stand at an optical aperture closed is still a good standard, resistance to backlighting and side flare is great, personally I feel that the price is now used vehicle is still a good buy. |
 | sent on January 24, 2016 Pros: incredible color rendition, sharpness, objective robust, speed focus, compactness Cons: slight distortion at 17mm Opinion: This view is fantastic for both full-frame and on APS-C. I am using it for a while 'for months and I must admit that I am fine and one of the few goals that I always choose this. Very convenient to go travel and go around in a città.rnPassando the more practical side from the very first photo I noticed the sharpness of the shots I made, comparing with my old goal; as I opened the photo on the computer I did immediately see the wonderful colors and especially noticed that reflected the true colors. I highly recommend it because it's worth a view is fantastic. |
 | sent on December 17, 2015 Pros: sharpness and image detail, color fidelity, focus PERFECT Cons: slight distortion at 17mm (but can be forgiven) Opinion: Superlative lens, perfect colors and excellent sharpness. focus fast and always accurate. Snap often at night but I never had problems focusing even in the toughest conditions. I particularly like the rendering of warm colors, especially red and blue tones. Optical unrivaled considering the price of 400-500 euro on used. Rugged construction and sealed dust-proof. Normal weight. |
 | sent on October 12, 2015 Pros: Superlative Optics!! Sharp lens and excellent mechanical precision! Sturdy and solid construction. AF very fast and precise even with little light. Reliable. Cons: 17 mm Physiological distortion only if you tilt up or down. Opinion: As mentioned is a perspective that for its price has no rivals on the Full Frame. I took it used equal to the new still under warranty at 400 euros. At the image Center is a lens always sharp at all focal length and at all apertures. At the edges the sharpness decays a bit but only at F4 and F5, 6. But closing from F8 onwards the Edge Center quality is analogous. It has an excellent color rendition with a high saturation and micro contrast. Sturdy, solid and eccellentissima mechanical precision. Solid construction. The AF is very responsive and instantaneous, it is accurate and reliable even in low light situations, it is not easy to put it in crisis. Used for reportage, landscapes, architecture and weddings performs his work with excellence. For architecture work distorts a bit at the minimum focal length but only angle up or down, but if kept perfectly in the bubble is well corrected. I've got to use the F2 16-35, 8 and believe me it distorts and vignettes a lot more, but as it costs double comes into play the opinion that is better. Believe me, the Big Brother only if you need a bigger opening can come back more useful, but it is not better. Indeed this gem carries out its work with excellence. In a normal lens, medium tele or long tele aperture F2, 8 for sure is an advantage; But with a wide-angle lens specific for landscapes, reportage, architecture, group photos and much more, the F4 aperture is not a problem as we can elevate the ISO by considering the noise containment with the modern sensors. With a price of about 700 euros you have all the wide most used in one optical. Recommended!! |
 | sent on July 06, 2015 Pros: Quality color, sharpness, robustness, precision. Cons: A bit 'distortion to 17mm Opinion: I bought used about six months ago and gave me a lot of satisfaction. the results are very good. Very accurate even in low light situations. It 'true that it is a 4, but used with appropriate caution not disappoint you. I suggest buying this lens for the strength. As is well known is a series L, then the TOP for canon. The only minor flaw is a slight distortion at 17mm, but nothing preoccupante.rn |
| sent on June 20, 2015 Pros: Construction, weight, image quality, perfect for aps-c Cons: FF on cartoon and distorts a bit ' Opinion: is a divine perspective, light and versatile, for those who want to have a series of L aps-c I would say this is a 17-40 must.rnSul FF you can enjoy the real wide angle, and since coming to 40mm can be used in different situations but nonetheless can never be an all-rounder as the 24-105 L but a great companion affiancare.rnAmate landscapes, pictures from minded, group photos, often taken at home or in situations with tight spaces, then you must have it rn !! |
 | sent on March 07, 2015 Pros: weight, af, colors Cons: opening only f4 (but is it really a problem?) Opinion: This gem of only 500 grams gives really nice pictures, if used properly is never lacking sharpness and tonal contrast. Suffers from a slight sprain minimum focal uncorrectable without problems in development. At this time, thanks to the release of 16-35 f4, looking between a used you can find it at a great price. Can not recommend it |
| sent on February 24, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, price, af fast, resistance to flare Cons: distortion at wide-angle focal Opinion: Objective I use to landscape photography. and in sports. The autofocus is always fast and accurate, the sharpness is very good even at the edges of a stop closing the diaphragm, while the center is still great. Also good resistance to flare and backlight, I also like the star closing around the diaphragm, the point light sources at night |
 | sent on February 11, 2015 Pros: Weight, construction, color rendition, contrast, sharpness in the center Cons: Soft edges (especially TA), slight distortion at 17mm Opinion: Got used to 400 € (here on the market) in very good condition; the good is very light but offers a yield of colors and contrasts really exceptional, the AF is very reattivo.Io use it on 70d (many turn up their nose saying that is absolutely not a view from APSC) in place of 17-55 f2.8 (which I really do not have found) and I can always take home some good scatti.In around there are excellent used then recommend you try it if maybe you wanted to replace the classical optical kit (see 18-55) .Manca the IS is true but for me there is absolutely no problem (in many situations just a tripod and on) .Sicuramente the new 16-35 f4 will certainly higher but it costs more than twice. |
| sent on January 18, 2015 Pros: All Over Cons: Nothing. Opinion: And 'my second optical L (I also have the 70/200), is excellent on both APSC On FF. those that are described by some as defects .... vignetting and less sharpness are absolutely absent on 'APSC and perfectly "normal" on FF. where, no optics is free from these "really small problems" 16/35 to 2.8 I used often before buying the 17/40, is affected to an extent far more serious ... yet defined good .. . I would not like it because it costs twice?!?! Buy it and you have a lens that is worth more than what it costs ... will give you the satisfaction that not even imagine ... |
| sent on January 04, 2015 Pros: Construction, operation, optical and mechanical, optical performance, and in particular color quality. Cons: None worth noting Opinion: State that I am an amateur photographer and I have recently done and we will have 100 pictures of 40d, but impressed me in his quality essenziali.rnUsato for those I guessed to be its uses election - photos "think", tripod , landscapes, views, details - returns true colors, saturated, well contrasted, balanced, all with a nice detail that is not "cut" and incisive enough to make images of raw and impact too, but by a very good balance between the sense of precision and detail and atmosphere sweet and poetic that gender does prediligere.rnIn substance, in my opinion has excellent performance for the critical aspects, very well proportioned and balanced in general characteristics, such that it becomes a reference for kinds which dedicato.rnIn this meaning seems to be not relevant lack of stabilization and openness "only" to f4, these aspects would be relevant in a perspective "general purpose" but fade much in a more specialistica.rnForse certain limits can weigh more for a "pro" that needs to include an investment in the totality of its activities and thus diversifying the fields of employment, for me with what it costs - came to my home to 350 including UV, perfect in appearance and operation except for a couple of subtle loses its gloss to the written - is an absolute reference . |
 | sent on November 30, 2014 Pros: tonal contrast, tropicalization Cons: distortion, sharpness decrease the maximum focal Opinion: When I had a kit lens Canon this was my favorite in a specific aspect, I will mention at the end of this quick review. Limits? That constitutional: a maximum aperture that does not go beyond f 4 is not so much a problem for shutter speeds, given the progress today to reduce noise to the progressive electronic signal amplification, as is detrimental because of the plasticity of ' image, even considering that the good minimum distance of focus would play on the wide-angle perspective planes also. Wide-angle focal suffering from noticeable distortion, but no more than other achievements not fixed .The sharpness is good but suffers from a distinct change in the focal length. The weather sealing is something that gradually becomes more important, taking into account that the weather sealing of the bodies is spreading even in cameras not high level, a feature that is partially thwarted by the combination with optical unprotected. The exact appearance of which I said INIuncle? Here it is: the tonal contrast. This lens has a tonal contrast well defined, which I have rarely encountered in other objectives, to the point that in some cases i decided not to make the slightest adjustment of the curves in postproduction. |
 | sent on September 17, 2014 Pros: Gorgeous colors, sharpness, filters 77, weather sealed (only with filter front), affordable price, Focal used, sturdy construction, availability and reselling Cons: Yield to TA, TA vignetting Opinion: My favorite optics as well as my first L series I used to do everything from landscapes, reportage, weddings (!), Architecture, and I was never disappointed. Beautiful colors and excellent resistance to flare, sharpness is excellent on FF than on aps-c where it becomes the equivalent of a 28-70 on FF and is a great all-rounder. On FF obviously skews between 17mm and 28mm, 28mm and 40mm between becoming perfect. The only drawback, in my opinion, is that a TA lose a little 'enamel, resulting in slightly less sharp and FF vignettando a lot I do not mind even in those situations (I love the vignetting in certain shots) but it is one thing to take into account when it assesses whether acquisto.rnSu Canon if you want a lens for landscapes is a must have in my opinion even if the new 16-35 seems to be a bomb (it costs almost twice as much though!) for a little more than € 600 (new) you have all the classic wide-angle focal lengths 17mm and the filter 77, all in half a kg of weight, so perfectly transportable. Rugged and weather sealed (only with front filter forò) also has a fast and responsive AF. Stra recommended lens on aps-c and FF! |
 | sent on August 24, 2014 Pros: Small to be an L series, Excellent engraving also apertures, great colors, great value q / p Cons: only f / 4 (for landscapes is just fine), not stabilized, you just can not detach from the machine! Opinion: First lens of the noble L series taken in place of sammy 14 2.8..amore at first sight! in day trips is always mounted, should be fine even indoors if combined with a FF or a good flash. nothing to say, excellent lens, if taken later used at the current price (500 euro) is unrivaled. try it! rnIo the use generally for scenery and portraiture, and I am fine, highly recommended, especially if you do not have the money for the top 16-35 f4 stabilized. With regard to the distortion of which many speak, there is, especially in short focal but is easily corrected with a click of PP. |
 | sent on August 16, 2014 Pros: Handling, resistance to flare, excellent value for money. F / 4 more than enough for the type of lens. Cons: Lack of sharpness at the edges, noticeable distortion and not always easily correctable. Opinion: For what it costs is a bargain. E 'light. I do not think it is weather sealed but at the same time is quite robust. A little gem with which you can try discreetly in landscape photography but also in street (those are a boon 35-40 mm) .rnIl 17-40 has two glaring flaws: the distortion very evident between 17 and 24 mm, not always easily removed in post-production, and the lack of sharpness at the edges. It should always work from f / 8 and up, to stem the problema.rnNel Overall, I'm still very soddisfatto.rn |
 | sent on August 09, 2014 Pros: Construction, weight, quality, sharpness and resistance to flare, price Cons: slight distortion and vignetting on FF, huge hood Opinion: I own this lens for about a year and I find it a great lens for Canon L-series of landscapes of FF at a price accessible to many. I use it on 6D and allows very wide angles of view with clarity and color F / 5.6 up very very good. Lens light that you'll hardly notice you have it. I preferred this objective at 16-35 f / 2.8 because I did not necessarily need a F / 2.8 and which I subsequently coupled the Samyang 14mm f / 2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical in the few cases where I have to have a more open ( night shots). If you do not neccessarily need a larger aperture AF (F / 2.8) is the lens that should not be missing in the kit. Value for money there are not really compare. |
 | sent on July 30, 2014 Pros: construction, light weight, great colors good flare, good bokeh. Cons: using it with aps-c I have not found Opinion: For about a month I use the 17-40 f / 4 on Canon 7D, I must say that, as far as I'm concerned I can not fault. Great flare and bokeh, colors and excellent sharpness, I tried daytime photo (freehand) and at night (tripod) I had a great response from this f / 4. A free hand you can not do macro but you can try. What can I say I keep it tight. |
 | sent on July 30, 2014 Pros: Construction, Quality, Sharpness, Color, Robustness Cons: For the moment no Opinion: I purchased this light not long ago and I use it on a Canon 550D. And 'razor sharp at all focal lengths, the colors are superb autofocus is fast and accurate. I am fully satisfied with the purchase. Council to apply ourselves as being a protective filter 77mm attracts a lot of dust. To be kept attached to the body throughout the day. |
 | sent on May 16, 2014 Pros: Lightweight, Sharpness, Color, optical quality, Series L, Resistance to Flare, Price Cons: I do not have it Opinion: Optics spectacular, an L-series at a honest price, 600 euro new, crystal clear over the whole range of focal lengths. The use of 5D Mark III will be released very soon soddisfazione.rnA new 16-35 f4 IS but at what price? The double .. I'll hold this for a long time yet! rnOttima construction, AF always very fast, very resistant to flare buona.rnAdatto landscapes, architecture, portraits settled, street .. also a focus very close (28cm) and a great bokeh TA! rnInsieme to a 70-200 L and some fixed light (f2 35 - 50 f1.4 - 85 f1.8) forms the basis for a perfect outfit for every situation photographic quality, ultra recommended! |
 | sent on April 04, 2014 Pros: Weight, L series, size, f / 4 at all focal lengths Cons: None Opinion: Purchased used for about 550 € I have to say that it is spectacular, used with my 6D FF then enjoy full use of the 17 mm wide-angle! Lightweight, weighs absolutely not when it is hung on the body throughout the day. AF very fast, it never fails! Money well spent, however, and holds the value to be used well. I would do it gladly purchase. Extra .... recommended to have in your kit! |
user26730 | sent on March 09, 2014 Pros: The quality, optical quality, weight, price Cons: Those who have a little 'all (see comment below) Opinion: A bran beautiful object! RnUn "thing" that allows you to do many things and wanting you can even forget to take it out macchina.rnIl range of focal lengths and good for a lot 'of photographic situations ranging from landscape architecture , from photography to interior (on a tripod) and also portraiture whatever they say. I've had it for a couple of years and I regret having sold. The cons are that many say has many wide-angle aperture f4 but are even more closed and he rejoices anyway. The fact that the corner is sharper on APS-C than on FF but ........ tell me if this is not the case with ALL the goals!?!? Any perspective, even from several thousand euro, at the corners and cleaner than on the crop ff! RnIo I used it often for portraiture and glamor in tight and did not make me regret most other optics expensive and most noble that was ho.rnSe f2, 8 .... It would be another point of view, it would be heavier and less clear and certainly cost you more! ForLess than 800 € you bring home a real L-series optics that is able to make us happy almost always. Sleek and stylish with rn |
 | sent on February 27, 2014 Pros: Construction, weather sealing, lightness, versatility, quality / price ratio. Cons: Slight distortion, not just at the edges razor sharp at f / 4, but nothing dramatic. Opinion: I find this zoom, beyond the criticism that they can move against him, a large bell'oggettino. Easy, fast, lightweight, sturdy, well used and Aperture right, around 5.6/8/11, has a plastic yield with excellent clarity and a beautiful color saturation. Has its place in the bag, not the unbalanced weight of the SLR FF and above has a value envied even by optical blasonate.rnSi much more needs to be exploited for what it was designed, in the intermediate diaphragms, those seeking the surrender of all openings shall direct their choice of other lenses, brighter, heavier and more complex construction and certainly cost more than doppio.rnColpisce honesty how this lens is able to bring home exciting results, the result of a simple project that does not give up, however, the characteristics typical of Canon Law Beautiful, excellent and affordable. |
| sent on February 27, 2014 Pros: Quality / price ratio, Sharpness overall resistance to flare and Construction. Cons: No cons when used for daytime landscapes Opinion: Goal is 650 € new, focal range that allows it to be used for multiple types of fotografia.rnOvvio that if you pretend to use it in dark scenes, this is not a suitable target, with the same focal length in this case it would be good to invest in a 16-35. with f 2.8rnSe used for daytime landscapes, use a board from f 5.6 to close, ensures sharp shots and good colors, good resistance to flare, weighs little, these are the characteristics necessary for those who are looking for a lens for landscapes, and did not want to invest any more than is said prima.rnUsato of 450 €. rnrnrn |
 | sent on February 02, 2014 Pros: Building and Top Quality, Color, Flare, Price .. Cons: Cartoon Opinion: I own this lens for 4 months or so and I used it a few times but I must say I was very surprised, I really like the colors and resistance to flare, robustness and image quality at the highest level, maybe a little 'soft to sides but honestly we talk about anything. Given my current kit (50mm 1.2 L + 70-200 2.8 is II) I wanted to opt for the 16-35 but under the advice of many former holders of both lenses I chose this soddisfatto.Rapporto 17-40 rimanendone much money there are truly unmatched, especially for someone like me who uses it rarely and exclusively for landscaping. I highly recommend it, you'll be glad not to regret anything, different speech if you need the mandatory 2.8 .. |
 | sent on January 14, 2014 Pros: Construction, yield, size, focal range. Cons: Distortion, slight lack of definition. Opinion: And a lens almost inevitable for those seeking a professional wide angle without spending a fortune. Ensures good picture quality, excellent construction and space at an affordable price to all (the less expensive L series). Well marketable, in line with the much more expensive 16 35 2.8 as sharpness. Loses a stop but for most applications in which it is intended is not a problem. A must, perhaps requires a revision, hoping canon does not set it then absurd prices as the latest releases. |
 | sent on January 13, 2014 Pros: Top construction, quality optics, focal range, resistance to flare, weather sealing, weight, color, sharpness Cons: Chromatic aberration, distortion of ff (both correctable), f4 Opinion: Amazing lens canon, my first L series: comparison with other optical seems ridiculous. Just took in his hands the impression has been that of a tank: solid, durable and tropical conditions: really superb. On APS-C is an excellent all-rounder thanks to the crop factor (sin is not IS), on ff behaves as a wide-angle pushed through a perspective that I particularly like. The colors are beautiful, the clarity and sharpness of this lens are great: it gives its best from f6 to f16, focal which really seems a blade. The heavens that gives this lens postcard, resistance to flare the lens is breaking, the colors sublime. I use it for landscapes, architecture, photos in the city / metropolitan, still-life, and particularly suitable for weddings and events in which you have to gather a lot of people in a few areas. It distorts and suffers from chromatic aberration, but both are correctable with LR or PS. Also great for street and reportage around the city is great as it is very light. The secondor best short zoom on these focal Canon: the first is the 16-35 f2.8, but it costs twice as much and it's just brighter: the rest of the two approaches are very close as optical perfection and made to travel cromatica.rnIdeale light and do not give up a sublime picture quality. RNA MUST HAVE in my opinion a short focal lengths: strategic advised also saw the value for money: well worth every penny! rn |
 | sent on January 05, 2014 Pros: IQ, weight, construction, weather sealing, solid and compact, Sharpness on the whole trip, f4 constant. Flare resistance. Usm quickly and preciso.rnParfocale. Cons: No one on aps-c. Cartoon and distorts on FF Opinion: This is my second lens L series that could not miss my outfit. Next to the 24 105 allows me to take pictures with very large angles. I use it mainly for landscapes and group shots or outdoor music events. I decided to opt for the 17 40 for the type of photos I take. Although a 2.8's brother can always be comfortable, almost always use small apertures. I do not recommend to work in lowlight / nottruna, times when a tripod is highly recommended. In any case it is a decent all-rounder on aps-c (not comparable to the "lord of the handyman" canon 24 105) that I recommend to anyone who is looking to get rid of 18 55. Weight and dimensions allow long photo sessions without feeling fatica.rnSe you have patience and / or a limited budget, you can find it used at relatively low prices. For my 500 I've spent with the remaining warranty period of 22 months. I highly recommend the latest versions by UZ on. |
 | sent on November 21, 2013 Pros: Price, colors, resistance to flare, weight, solid. Cons: No one, at least on APS-C Opinion: I was really happy with this purchase, the scope of portfolios without fainting troppo.rnNonostante weights 500gr, I used it for 6 hours straight without ever accuse fatigue, it is not too much weight and build quality worth the money spesi.rnUsato under a light rain with a 7D, I never had any problems of any kind, I recommend the installation of a protective filter 77mm to make it waterproof and 100% safe, the weather sealing will make resto.rnConsigliatissimo. |
user17361 | sent on November 20, 2013 Pros: Colors, contrast, good resistance to flare, focal length, sealing, robust Cons: FF loses sharpness of the edges appear obvious chromatic aberrations and vignetting is 17mm on APS-C no defect Opinion: There is as if there were built, also great colors that returns when photographing the vegetation, the greens are very well made with excellent contrast, I recommend it especially for the landscape, and if it is true that his elder brother the 16-35 f/2.8 brings the flaws that you read the various reviews I would say that there is no reason to spend twice as much if you're undecided between the two, if you have an APS-C body and a FF this is the wide-angle lens that's right for you! |
 | sent on November 15, 2013 Pros: Light weight, high quality materials that express strength, tropicalization, softness and engraving depending on how you take advantage of the diaphragm. Minimum focus distance of 28 cm. Cons: No one Opinion: Using this lens on CANON 7D so I have not been able to experience the distortion that someone points out FF.rnL 'I bought it because the reviews on FF they still believe and why I did not find in these focal lengths and experienced anything better. The lens is a bit 'dated as construction, its design has now 10 years, but the quality is there and all without compromessi.rnMi surprised by the yield at the minimum distance of focus, giving me the opportunity to do the "modest" almost macro photo quality but superba.rnDopo that, if you look at how wonderfully it is used by Catherine Bruzzone you realize how landscapes are kissed by this goal! It is not stabilized but at these focal lengths is practically impossible to feel the need. Canon has perhaps thought in this direction. |
 | sent on September 27, 2013 Pros: Weight, price, resistance to flare, MAF, optical quality and construction Cons: sharpness at the edges to TA but only on FF Opinion: If you are owner of a Canon FF can not miss in your kit, lens pazzesca.Resa color, sharpness and resistance to flare are at the top, that is, 10 years of production and not hear! For a landscape architect is the top if not needed opening greater than the big brother 2.8.Rapporto quality / price exaggerated. Quality L series, if fitted with a sealed filter. In addition f / 8 the sharpness of this lens has few rivals. |
| sent on July 29, 2013 Pros: - Value / prezzorn-Excellent in photography paesagisticarn-excursion 17-40 rn-quality immaginern-leggerezzarn-strength Cons: - Being 4.0 is a lens that does not lend itself to low light, especially when you have the tripod with the AF te.rn-sometimes hard to focus on infinity. Opinion: Exceptional lens for value prezzo.rnIl Its ideal to use the natural scenery during the day, the results are truly in pleasant quality immagine.rnSi performs well at all focal lengths, though not without some small defect correctable well-being for pp.rnConsigliato who has a FF and has no budget to invest in exaggerated by lenti.rnL 'Af is quiet and fast, but on occasion a tantrum. (Probably my copy is so). RNLA lens is sturdy and well built with material from the immediate impression that you have in your hands something serious and well fatto.rnNel Overall: 8/10 seems to me an honest vote. |
 | sent on July 23, 2013 Pros: Solid, tropical conditions and resistance to flare, AC small. Cons: nobody, on APSC. FF on the corners to maximum apertures are soft compared to the central part and there is distortion. Nothing that can not be solved in PP. Opinion: My first L-series I was very happy with the sharpness that. A lens that is really good for a landscape. Construction and color rendering at the top, the colors are very loyal and does not enter the lens dominant. I use it with a b + w 10 stop and I was never disappointed. E 'on 700 euro and it is, in my opinion, a bell'investimento quality for your pictures. As mentioned above, with the crop APSC is uan has made remarkable throughout the frame, which becomes sublime between f 9-11 (values ??almost stringent for a landscape). It gets better, it gets worse. Everything lies in the use that he wants to do. Ultimately, I would never change this lens, absolutely. |
 | sent on June 20, 2013 Pros: A great goal, absolute sharpness, flare absent, weather sealed, lightweight and versatile, target class L, value for money Cons: Until now I have not seen anything even because I use it with my canon 6D Opinion: O bought this lens to have a length of more than 14mm and less than 50mm to fill that spazzio between 15 and 40mm and or bought 17_40 say that practically almost everything a photographer we aim to do everything from the architecture along the road landscapes are happy with the sharpness and manageability. As everyone says the abberazzione does not fail but with my 6D the aberazzione not a problem, a lens in my opinion should not be underestimated to keep the kit and not a professional photographer. |
 | sent on May 11, 2013 Pros: Weight, build quality, Fast AF and tropical conditions and resistance to flare. Cons: on APS-H nothing irrelevant, perhaps a bit of color aberazione easily correctable. Opinion: I've got to try this lens for 3 days, and since I am nearing the landscape photography I wanted to try a wide angle, and I must say that this lens is really good especially if you close by F / 8 on, where the definition is really croppando also very good, so do not benefit from poco.rnPersonalmente think it will evaluate the purchase soon. |
 | sent on April 25, 2013 Pros: Quality L series tropicalization, resistors, image quality on aps-c Cons: Image quality is not at the top of full frame models; vignetting on FF unusable apertures Opinion: I have a love-hate relationship with this view. The first shots I made of 60D were rather disappointing. After several shots I realized that the lens was at his best in small apertures. For this reason, and also because of the failure to stabilize, I highly recommend using it where possible with a tripod in order to keep the diaphragm always above the opening 8.0. After being switched to full frame with the 5D mark II, I noticed some flaws in the quality of the photo, such as vignetting and made the edges, as indeed they have confirmed other users. For this reason I decided to sell it to switch to better optics. But perhaps this is the price you pay to be passed to the world full frame. I feel, however, to advise the optics for all those who use a camera body aps-c. |
 | sent on April 01, 2013 Pros: sharpness, weight, color and contrast Cons: in my opinion no Opinion: in my opinion, and 'a very good lens ...... I I match a 1100d and by the time I am satisfied, before taking it I was in crisis, so many brands and wide-angle, I read a lot of reviews and this is of other objectives and indecision saliva more and more ', until one day I decided and I took it .... after my first test shot I said .. SHOW ... I really think I made the right choice also 'cause it's weather sealed and is well on FF, more' and you use it more 'you feel like scattatre for quality' image that gives but now that I have it I would not change for anything .... recommended to all! |
| sent on February 28, 2013 Pros: quality, construction, weight, resistance to flare Cons: I would say no, if I have to write something that perhaps the lack of IS on occasion without a tripod and maybe inside, it could offset some of the opening f4 Opinion: It has an unbeatable value for money, very nice colors and excellent sharpness. Using it on APS-C is not affected even at the edges of the worsening quoted by several who use it on FF. I use it a lot for landscape shots, normally closed at f8, which is in my opinion the best opening in terms of PDC and sharpness. If you do not have an absolute need for a larger aperture is absolutely preferable to the 16-35 f2.8, considering the price much lower. |
 | sent on February 13, 2013 Pros: Excellent resistance to flare, ac not high, good sharpness above f8, lightweight and economical. Cons: Made at the widest apertures especially at the periphery Opinion: Good optics, covers a range of focal lengths needed in the landscape where the use of small apertures neutralizes the main drawback to the lack of clarity apertures, distortion, and vignetting ac although not negligible are effectively corrected by Acr and Lr, in short, a good lens; the alternative in the home Canon 16/35, much more expensive and not as heavy big improvements. |
user2904 | sent on January 10, 2013 Pros: Price, color, lightness, sealing, resistance to flare, sharpness, autofocus, construction. Cons: A little 'distortion, edge / soft corners at 17 mm. Opinion: I got this lens after reading many reviews and seen a lot of photos. Every time I use it is a joy. It has beautiful colors, a focal perfect for landscape photos, and a very low price. Taking a perspective that has now 10 years of age and is the cheapest L series I really expected less, however I am very satisfied, first of clarity that reaches extremely high values ??and lacks only in the most extreme portions of the image (cm ² improved closing at least f8, diaphragms still usable for landscape photography). rnPer buyers should be careful to budget is a view I think that you can not have. Tested for a short period of APSC I think makes the best of Full Frame (although, of course, falling in sharpness at the corners). |
 | sent on December 29, 2012 Pros: Low distortion, good resolution and total surrender to the edge is pretty good. Natural colors and very nice, solid and incomparable tropicalization Cons: There are many points against it, perhaps the resistance to flare, which is not exciting. Opinion: I purchased it recently and was moved to FF ... I have to say that the comparison with the 10-22 is in its favor in respect of strength and solid feel, in terms of sharpness and image recording more or less we are there, with the flare instead takes a little pay from wide-angle specific for aps-c. I do full backlit with the sun in the room, so this for me is paramount. I must say that the price is reasonable, and would definitely recommend |
 | sent on December 28, 2012 Pros: flare virtually absent, as fast as all usm, lightweight and considering the year of manufacture is almost perfect picture quality, the absence of the stabilizer does not feel ... in fact you take good night freehand and with time around the second half, the cost puts it as an excellent antagonist 16-35 f2.8 which costs more than double. Cons: its main drawback is the edge where quality and abberazioni to f4 are at home even on smaller formats of the ff, closing and working in PP, however, you can recover almost everything. Opinion: the greatest fear was to take new perspective already old (in prod. since 2003) and then find a lens reflex as not up to the mk4 or 7d (where I use 17-40), however the optical proved up to the critical situation in which I suffered suttoposta .... full backlighting and night pushed, demonstrating a truly impeccable quality and unbelievable .... Needless to say, in normal condition is amazing and the cost around the 750 euro puts the first step above optics of prestige as the 16-35 f2.8 or similar. the loss of a diaphragm does not feel and make the tropicalization, this 17-40, very safe on the field. Once you have purchased doubts and fears disappear. |
 | sent on December 16, 2012 Pros: Color rendering, weight, construction, value for money, virtually no flare, radiating very pleasant. Cons: FF of distortion and poor sharpness in the corners, especially at full aperture. Opinion: The build quality is excellent, as well as value for money! I use it on the 7D and I have no problems at the edges that occur in FF, however, present more or less in all the wide-angle lenses. It 'zoom very versatile, which I highly recommend due to the compact size, sharpness and excellent color rendering. Allows excellent backlight with the absence of flare accompanied by a beautiful sunburst in smaller apertures. Although optics L series, are present major differences between a specimen and the other, especially in terms of sharpness! The 16-35 2.8 L USM II costs almost twice as much and only has the greatest chance of aperture as clear distinguishing feature. |
 | sent on December 04, 2012 Pros: Lightweight, compact, sealed, excellent resistance to flare. Cons: Sharpen the edges below f8, chromatic aberration and distortion very obvious on FF. Opinion: A lens that every user "Canon" should have, for the versatility of use. On FF you go to dall'ultragrandangolare focal right for the story. A lens built in a sublime and tropical conditions, robust and very leggera.rnOffre a very high sharpness, provided you shut down more than f8. At the widest apertures yield the edges I find it rather poor, but it is to say that being a wide-angle zoom you should use almost exclusively over f8.rnSicuramente offers more than what it costs, without a shadow of a doubt to be preferred to the more expensive 16-35mm f2, 8 II that at the level of sharpness is not certain migliore.rn |
 | sent on September 12, 2012 Pros: Excellent construction - chromatic - sharpness (from f: 5.6 onwards) - compact size and small footprint Cons: made at the edges (up to f: 8) - distortion at 17mm - light falloff at the edges at 17mm - Opinion: And 'perspective ideal for shooting nature, landscapes, close-up details. The zoom range is unique but you can limit the changes of optic focal intermediate, covering all reasonably useful wide angle to a "normal short" as the 40mm. In architecture pays the price of a visible distortion: the correction in post-production is operable with good results but at the cost of losing substantial areas of the image. On the other hand around 22-23mm distortion is canceled completely, and from this point of view, it is preferable widely used in the 17-40 24-105 24 with respect to the same focal length. A f: 4 remains very usable, but this openness should be paid preferably shooting handheld, because the peripheral areas, rather soft wide open, and immediately benefit greatly from the closure of even one stop, the best between f: 5, 6 and f: 8. If necessary, zoom can be used as well as "average" on a APSC, as long as you know how to live with an opening not very high and the absence of the stabilizer. |
 | sent on July 12, 2012 Pros: Price, AF, construction, weather sealing, sharpness in the center, and especially resistance to flare and chromatic contrast. Cons: Sharpen the edges and "light" distortion. Opinion: I have this view since December and I've used it a lot and in various conditions. is bonded to the 5D and not take it off easily. The construction is almost breaking, very solid and compact. The AF is fast and accurate (with all the limitations of the 5D MkII) .. I tested it in the snow, under a waterfall, in the rain, in the earth / dust and after a clean is always as good as new .. The edges are the Achilles heel of this view: they are a bit 'ruined also closing a lot of the diaphragm .. It has a little 'ac and purple fringing but for me it's something irrelevant because in addition to being easily corrected in PP is also very visible if the picture is not cropped .. rnrnStraconsigliato |
 | sent on June 07, 2012 Pros: Sealed, AF, Construction, Sharpness, Value for money, resistance to flare. Cons: Noticeable distortion at 17mm easily corrected, soft corners on FF especially. Opinion: I have this lens for a short time, but now I have appreciated the qualities, resistance to flare is excellent, as well as the sharpness, it is true that the edges become soft, but just close the aperture a bit and the problem disappears. I purchased it for my 5D Mark II as a handyman, although the range of focal lengths is not particularly foam are enthusiastic, but especially for the landscape, the colors that returns are superb, the AF is lightning equal to that of 16 - 35 II, the cost is much lower than the latter, but it is not quality, of course, if you need an aperture of f/2.8 to force the choice falls on the 16-35. For the rest has nothing to envy to the latter. It is also lightweight, it is a pleasure to use even for a whole day! |
 | sent on June 06, 2012 Pros: lightweight, compact, rugged, sealed, excellent color, excellent sharpness Cons: is "only" an f / 4 and distortion at 17mm rather obvious but easily corrected in PP Opinion: I consider it very good perspective. When compared to big brother lost 16-35 in a comparison of distortion and maximum opening but wins hands down for color management ..... greens and blues eats them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The yield on incarnate is nothing short of spectacular (although it is not a perspective for portraits). If you evaluate the price, it remains one of the best optics. |
user493 | sent on May 15, 2012 Pros: Weight, price, clarity, absence of flare, sealing, construction Cons: FF made on the edges not perfect, none of aps-c Opinion: I purchased this light as do all of aps-c and how wide on FF choice (for me) was detected perfectly. On aps-c I have not found virtually no defect, many say it is not a lens created for this format, I personally am very happy. Of FF becomes quite wide, 17mm cartoon to a little 'and loses the edges, however, are the negative points that do not affect too much for me. |
 | sent on March 16, 2012 Pros: excellent construction and autofocus, good value for money, it returns very beautiful colors Cons: defining the edges very poor Opinion: as said, is a view that the price has few rivals in FF, and has many advantages including the construction, fast autofocus and a yield to honest apertures. Unfortunately at the widest apertures at the edge quality is very bad for me to limit dell'inutilizzabile and this is the biggest flaw of optics. The colors that returns are very beautiful, aberrations and vignetting easily solved and then for me instead negligible as regards the resistance to flare that all extolled I find that if the cables well but that is not an exceptional level as his little brother for aps: the 10-22 optics substantially to landscape to use a small apertures to get the best yield and homogenize |
 | sent on February 23, 2012 Pros: sharpness and excellent color rendering, weight, solid construction, tropical flare resistance, value for money, awesome AF Cons: drop in quality at the edges Opinion: Good wide angle that covers a range of focal lengths that it can be used beyond the normal use of the wide, reaching to 40mm. The colors and sharpness are truly remarkable, it has a fast and accurate AF, is solid but well-built, ergonomic, lightweight and sealed, all at a reasonable price. There are at TA vignetting, distortion and aberrations, but in my opinion all the standard and easily correctable. The real flaw in my opinion is the quality at the edges at the widest apertures, closing cmq improves. Finally, a great lens that I recommend without any problems. |
 | sent on January 21, 2012 Pros: Construction, focal range, colors, af, resistance to flare, weight, ergonomics. Cons: Made at the edges. Opinion: I have a few days this light. FF covers a focal range of interesting. Construction and AF flawless, excellent yield to centro.rnMolto, but much less convincingly made the extreme corners, which also appears in the chromatic rather obvious ... perspective seems almost designed for APS-C or APS-H up, fortunately already closing in F4, 5 things improve in a manner perceptible to become excellent from 5.6 in poi.rnE 'true that if you use it for landscaping (like a zoom of this type would suggest), you probably will close a lot of the diaphragm, but from an L series I would have expected a little bit more. Much more successful in my opinion the brother for APS-C 10-22, which covers substantially the same angles, but unfortunately it is not built in a analoga.rnLa distortion that many complain is in my opinion not so dramatically evidente.rnLa vignetting is perfectly corrected by the internal software of the 5D Mk2 and 7D which I use it. |
 | sent on October 15, 2011 Pros: Sizes, sealing, cost, image quality, lightning-fast AF. Cons: Vignetting TA, minimal distortion. Opinion: That is, a lens of an immense versatility! I use it on 5D2, and is unquestionably what time remains attached to the car ... I use it for practically everything: landscapes (the field more logical for this type of lens), portraits or still photos to events, and lately it is undermining the Sigma 50 1.4 when I'm around the city. It 's small, lightweight, extremely well built, has an autofocus deadly in terms of speed, image quality is really very good, virtually immune to flare and the colors are really making a show, it seems to always have the polarizer mounted of! Well ... very recommended! |
 | sent on October 03, 2011 Pros: Weight, sharpness, vignetting Cons: diameter filters Opinion: I had both the first version than the second, differences selector on FF I personally like the vignetting that at RT, chromatic aberration can be a problem in certain scenes, but in a landscape use, then closing the aperture stop of several , is gradually to sminurire this defect AC, is a lens that should not be missing in the scope of a landscape photographer! |
 | sent on September 29, 2011 Pros: Construction, sealing, lightness, resistance to flare, color rendering and micro-contrast, value for money. Cons: Distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting and loss of sharpness at the edges at 17mm at RT. Opinion: The 17-40 is a great zoom for landscapes on FF. Lightweight, durable, has a high resistance to flare (very important factor in a wide-angle), good sharpness and beautiful color rendering. A defect on FF, is the chromatic aberration at 17mm to TA: you can solve simply by closing a pair of stop intervening or by clicking on the Lens Profile of LR or PS. Since then a lens whose vocation is precisely landscaping, this difficulty is almost negligible because in this kind shooting usually rather closed aperture (f8 onwards). PP, always with the lens profile is also corrected the distortion is more evident between 17 and 20mm, and vignetting present mainly at room temperature in the same range of focal lengths. Very good AF, fast and accurate. On APS-C, while gaining the edge, has a range of focal lengths is not particularly attractive, and especially dominated by the 17-55 IS is that in addition to stabilization and 18mm plus it has one stop advantage (at a cost, however, is greater). Very good value for money. |
 | sent on September 28, 2011 Pros: Colors, f / 4 constant, sealed, AF, Construction, Sharpness Cons: Vignetting, distortion, AC Opinion: I had this lens for a long time on both of 5d 5d2. It has an excellent yield (at least my copy) from edge to edge already at f / 4 produces detailed images and high-contrast, strong backlighting produces AC easily corrected in PP. Distorts to 17mm (but always correctable PP) has a range of focal interesting, a fast and accurate AF. I changed to a 16-35L II (blatantly was wrong) a perfect match with the FF or too pushed it too long ... Its range of use ideal f/5.6 - f/11 |
 | sent on September 25, 2011 Pros: Lightness, constant aperture of the diaphragm, sealing, cost is not excessive Cons: The corners (on FF) the quality is not excellent Opinion: A lens without a doubt very good it's worth the money it costs. Well built, sturdy and weather sealed. As has already been said very resistant to flare and allows magnificent shots against the light not possible with other objectives. The only flaw I found was leaking a little at the corners in terms of sharpness on FF. Show a bit of chromatic aberration and vignetting, but things are solved with a simple click of ACR or DPP. Ultimately excellent lens, which would replace not with the 16-35 f / 2.8 that although it may be better in some uses, it is also more cumbersome, heavier and costs twice. |
 | sent on September 24, 2011 Pros: Weight, Building, Value for money, nice sharpness, flare virtually absent, very nice sunburst Cons: FF of the distortion is heard and chromatic aberration there Opinion: As already summarized the strength of this lens lies in the excellent value for money, being a full frame that offers excellent pictures with excellent sharpness at a price not exorbitant. The construction is great, is weather sealed and despite the age of 8 remains very competitive with a lot of lenses available on the market, even if it does not take the comparison with the 16-35 2.8 L USM II but it costs twice as much. A feature seen in the photos in my gallery is the absence of flare accompanied by a beautiful sunburst eni backlighting to smaller apertures. FF of the distortion can be heard as well as chromatic aberrations there are species maximum aperture, but nothing irreparable in post-production, in the wake of the defects would point to the small excursion that the front lens, otherwise a lens that despite age still enjoys an excellent reputation and a fantastic value for money. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
