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

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:51:36 +0000

Nice review and photo’s - This will be the first lens I will purchase to go with the 30D I have my eye on!

Thanks

By: sandro

sandro — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:14:10 +0000

Stinky » Sorry, but you are very wrong. L lens means several things, that is excellent optics, outstanding build quality, blazing fast AF, and sometimes weather sealing. On the other hand I agree, there are some gems among old lenses that can be comparable. But then again buying lenses from 1960’s doesn’t make any sense, since you loose AF, AV reading, using adapter also causes some lenses to loose infinity focus. So paying extra for a brick (L) that will last you decades isn’t such a bad idea.

Also note, this is the least expensive L lens. Seems like you don’t know much about canon line-up and specifically L lenses. I suggest you to do a little research on the subject, and then maybe we can have a discussion here

p.s. At the end of the day, its the photographer who takes photos, and gear doesn’t matter much!

By: Stinky

Stinky — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:03:31 +0000

You’re a little too enthusiastic.

OK, it’s a good lens but an “L” lens doesn’t really mean anything. You could get beautiful results with a cheap 1960’s lens with an adapter.

Naive beginners think all these wonderful things about “expensive” lenses, but they don’t have the experience to make sound judgements.

By: sandro

sandro — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:40:03 +0000

Forrest » 24L is a beautiful lens, I had a chance to rent it. Well I don’t do much of landscape photography, but for photographing people in their natural environment as a street photography style its perfect for me

By: sandro

sandro — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:03 +0000

bhaskar mitra » Well in general it only depends on the use, if you aren’t a landscape photographer UWA like 17-40 won’t serve you well. 24-105 on the other hand would make a perfect walk-around for any need. Image quality is excellent, IS is very helpful etc. So I recommend taking the second option.

By: Forrest

Forrest — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:29:48 +0000

I used the 16-35 L mark 1 for a few years, and have been using the Sigma 15 - 30 EX for a few more years. I considered the 17-40, but I don’t like the slow aperture ( even for landscape photography, which is usually in the f/11 to f/16 range, I like a bright view finder, especially for night work ) and 17 mm isn’t really wide enough for my taste.

Personally, I’ve been lusting after a 24 mm f/1.4 L. I realize that’s significantly narrower than 17 mm, although 24 mm ( on full frame ) is a magical field of view. Just incredibly well suited to landscape photography.

Ironically, an ultrawide is the only zoom I have. The rest of my lenses are generally L-series primes. If you ever get a chance to use the fabled 135/2, it’s painful to remove from your camera…!

By: bhaskar mitra

bhaskar mitra — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:18:15 +0000

I’m very confused about performancec of 2 lens.
1. 17 - 40
2. 24 - 105 IS
Focal length is not a matter, I want only exelent immage quality.
which one is best for my EOS 350D ???