Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras Reviews

Average Customer Rating - 4.6 out of 5 stars

165 customer reviews

Versatility on the Cheap, July 3, 2006
No one lens accomplishes every photographic objective. Canon make each lens at every price point well-suited to various tasks, but near limitations that can only be overcome by graduating to the subsequent higher priced but similar item. A case within point: the wide-angle zooms.

The 17-40mm f/4 is one of Canon's best deals surrounded by L-series glass. You have to spend twice as much to catch a lens of similar quality, but just one stop faster. Does this manufacture the more-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L a ripoff? Not for its own specific use: the extra stop gives you the speed to shoot in more indoor situations. Not adjectives photographers need this. When indoors, we're often taking photos of people, which are better suited to lengths around 50-100mm. To occupation sweeping panoramas of parlors for Architectural Digest (or Coldwell Banker) the f/2.8 is the better lens and worth the step up in price, though contained by many cases you could use the f/4 lens with a tripod. All this channel is that the f/2.8 is priced for professional specialists whereas the f/4 is for more general use. My bigger point is that Canon has its unbroken lineup positioned: the differences across lenses are specific and appropriately priced, which is good news for the consumer. It's easier said than done to make a mistake buying homegrown Canon lenses, especially L-series lenses. You just hold to figure out which set of two or three suits your range of uses.

The 17-40mm is a steal for family who need a walkaround lens for travel and outdoor photography. The shorter focal lengths of the zoom are great on a digital body, next to nice reach and minimal distortion; just an wherewithal to grab up landscape and far-reaching situations end-to-end, even when standing close. The focal lengths around 40mm are tight ample for portraits and other local detail. Colors are strong and convincing; contrast deep and impactful. The lens itself is small enough and lantern enough to grab-and-go, but nicely machined, beside solid fit and finish. It has an instantly recognizable profile, near the added bonus of the red ring.

This lens, plus a 70-200mm f/2.8 telescope and a nice fast fixed lens in the scale betwixt are all you need. On break, and in most outdoor situations, the 17-40mm alone suffices. It makes a fitting first L-lens, and a staple in the arsenal.

Only decent contained by comparison to other L's, October 31, 2006
(I really want to give this lens 3.5 stars)

This review is written from the viewpoint of someone whom have used many L-class lenses, and as such will be a little harder on this piece of chalice. If you've never used a Canon L lens and you purchase this one, I guarantee you'll be quite pleased with your purchase. But this review is really designed for those who own other L glass pieces and are looking into adding this one to their collection.

The honourable:
L glass tends to niggardly some heavy-weight glass, however this lens is surprisingly light and small. In certainty, it is the smallest/lightest L zoom Canon makes. You find yourself more likely to nick it to places where there may not be much of a projected photo opportunity or where on earth there is a higher risk within damaged gear due to its unobtrusive size. It really is one of those few L lenses that you can casually totter around with and not garner much for attention.

As near all L-glass, this ones very solidly constructed. It have a simplicity of design that minimizes risk to moving parts from shock. It is well-balanced and just feels similar to a tight glass package.

The lens perform very well within color and contrast. Natural saturation is excellent, easily on par with the L expectation. The color and saturation of this lens sits somewhere between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I initially thought that the zoom scope would be constraining (a mere 23mm of range?), but in veracity the lens is fairly versatile. This especially true on a 1.6 FOVCF body (20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, etc), where on earth the range is more like that of a mundane zoom, at the cost of the super-wide advantage. The lens handles pretty much adjectives composition tasks except those of a telephoto or 1.0x macro. You won't be disappointed in the zoom versatility.

Price. This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available. For those whom are vastly accustomed to purchasing/collecting L lenses, anything under a thousand dollars really is considered on the cheap side. If this is your first L purchase, this lens or the 70-200mm F/4L are your places to start.

Flare. There's practically none.

Cons: (there's only one, but its a biggie)
Sharpness. This is by far my biggest qualm, and what make me frown a little at this lens for its L designation. It's nowhere near that of other lenses. One of the biggest uses for this lens is countryside photography, where objects appear very distant and sharpness become crucial. 24mm at f/4 on this lens is easily less sharp than 24mm at f/2.8 (!) on the 24-70 f/2.8L. And as a moment or two investigation will reveal, this probelm is also somewhat appearant on the 16-35mm f/2.8L (although it seems less pronounced). 100% crop comparisons of this lens to other lenses such as the 180mm f/3.5L is simply a practical joke.

Other:
This lens utilizes slight movement of the front element, so it is advised by pretty much everyone that a UV filter be purchased (77mm filter size). I append to that by saying: buy only the Multi-coated from B+W or Hoya if you're shooting digital. Yes, they're usually somewhere around eighty bucks, but spending forty on something that will bring you ghosting/contrast woes is not worth it.

The hood of this lens is a hoot. It's almost five inches wide and maybe an inch and a partly tall. I simply don't use it (I can't geometrically see how it helps. I ruminate it may be something of a feel-good-hood if you're not consiencious about flare.) The lens is less conspicuous in need it and I really don't have a flare problem.

Conclusion
I'm really not satisfied near the sharpness issue. It seems at least somewhat appearant on almost adjectives Canon's lenses below 35mm. (Except for the 24-70 and 24-105, which is odd). I think they're still working out their wide-angle formula. Appearantly, the new 17-55mm f/2.8 is supposed to be sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35, so they are probably on the right track of on the increase the issue.

In the end, if you've never used L glass and are considering this one, buy it. You will be massively pleased, I assure you. But if you own a good deal of L glass, you may want to hold bad from this one and wait for Canon to improve their optics. You may find yourself approaching me, using other L pieces and only using this one when I absolutely own to.

One of the cheapest of Canon's Ls, but with all the competence, March 14, 2005
If you're using a DSLR compatible with EF-S lenses, Canon already has the 17-55 and 17-85/IS, but there's still plenty of origin to go for this L lens. It's an investment in the adjectives (assuming 1.3x or full-frame crop cameras get cheaper sometime soon), and Canon's top-line lenses hold their resale value extremely all right. But the biggest reason is simply quality.

Those other lenses are pretty honest, but just can't quite meeting the wonderful color, contrast and sharpness of the 17-40 across its range. There's a touch of barrel / pincushion distortion at the ends, but hardly noticeable and easily remedied.

The compass is incredibly useful, whether as a 17-40 on a full-frame, 22-52 on a 1.3x, or 27-64 on a 1.6x crop camera like the Digital Rebel or 20D. On the latter, it's merely cavernous rather than ultrawide, but if you've been walking around next to something that bottoms out at 24 or 28mm, you'll probably be surprised at how much you missed that wide angle. Yes, the long end doesn't be in motion very long, but in my evaluation the range you gain at the wide conclude is more valuable.

Focusing is fast and stillness, with full-time manual focusing wherewithal (even in autofocus mode), and build quality is excellent. It feel very solid and weighty, but not at all unhealthy. It includes a gel holder in the rear, but can transport 77mm front filters as well (and the encyclopaedia recommends one in instruct to complete weather-sealing in the front).

I'm not really a fan of Canon's finish for black L lenses, but it looks rather impressive, and has the f��ted red ring of an L at the end. The big, oddly-shaped petal hood is a bit unwieldy, and has to be stored separately from the lens if you want to fit it confidently into most camera bags.

An alternative would be to go beside primes, which can be faster, cheaper, and even sharper, but not so much at the wider end, where they tend to be weighty and involve some key tradeoff (not the least of which is that, of course, you'll call for at least a couple to cover this range). If you want a high-quality one-lens solution to wander around with, particularly for travel photography, this is it.

Film Users Alert - It's Not Just For Digital SLRs, October 14, 2004
For years, I hold been using my 28-70 f:2.8 Canon zoom as my "normal" lens. It is sharp (Oh baby is it!) and at 2.8,swift enough for just roughly speaking any pro or serious amateur. But there were plenty of times I needed somewhat more coverage than the 28MM focal length provided. Since most of my work is with long-lens and fast (and expensive) zoom, I couldn't pony up the bucks for Canon's superwide f2.8 zoom. When I saw the price on the 17-40MM lens and the fact that it was the "L" flavor near pro glass, I bought it immediately. I've have it for about a year and I have already sold several pictures - published surrounded by glossy magazines next to picky photo editors. And I trust it to give me sharp pictures, even at the extreme settings - wide depart and at the 17MM end. You have to remember to other use the weird looking but effective lens hood to control flare and as near any very wide lens, look at the edges of the frame (your foot could be in every picture!) It's light, biddable enough to use as your normal lens and beside their new 70-300 IS DO lens could make for an amazing and compact travel tackle. So while Canon's lens experts probably built this one for the growing digital crowd, as a film user I think it's the negotiate of the year and is in my camera bag every time I stir on assignment. I suggest that you get a good talent "thin" UV filter and polarizer and you will be set to explore the exciting world of ultra-wide photography.

Important update: I recently returned from an assignment to Monte Carlo to test drive sports cars. Part of the buy and sell was to get thrill rides from a pro driver up and down the French mountains above Monaco. Armed next to my 17-40MM an EOS 1V, 540 flash, and Velvia 50, I clicked off a whole roll of show during my turn in the passenger's seat. The magazine editor call me when he saw the slides and said that the shots in the car be the "strongest images" in the shoot. Yup, the lens is that good.

Vermeer wuld enjoy used it, August 6, 2006
This is a magnificent lens deserving of high praise. In broad, I tend to shoot "available light" and towards wide angle, and EF 17-40 F4L is one perfect lens for someone resembling me. On an APS size sensor camera (mine is Rebel XT), it works approximately like a 28-70 mm zoom--a perfect walk-around lens, giving you fully clad wide angle and at the tele end, a pleasing perspective on face you expect from a moderate telephoto. I spent two weeks with EF 17-40 on the coast shooting nature and street stuff surrounded by small towns. It performed perfectly. But I individual realized what a real treasure I enjoy when I began having second thoughts nearly it on the eve of a long overseas journey. I asked myself whether I would not have done better buying EF-S 17-85 F4-5.6 IS. After adjectives, it gives you better reach - an equivalent of 28-135 mm zoom on a 35 mm camera. Would it not be a dependable lens on an overseas trip? A dilemma worhty of Hamlet. So I decided to order it from Amazon while I still have time to return EF 17-40. As soon as EF-S 17-85 came, I did some tests taking photographs of still life, flowers and a portrait at similar focal lengths and at full zoom. The results put 17-85 to shame. Color and lantern were flat and paled subsequent to 17-40. But there was still the problem of accomplish. I took a portrait at full zoom of the same person (40 mm or 65 mm equivalent and 85 mm or 135 equivalent), cut out the critical focus nouns from both pix and equalized the two crops in terms of pixel numbers. Unprocessed, 17-85 produced a faultlessly focused picture, the 17-40 crop was visibly softer, but in expressions of tonality and richness of gradations, it was way ahead of its rival. Photoshop to the rescue! After I fiddle with sharpening and contrast in CS2, the focus softness within 17-40 was gone, and the result was a better all-around picture of matching portrait detail. In other words, if you wish to take a picture, articulate, of a building's detail or a monkey mug shot in a zoo--a situation calling for a telephoto of 135 mm that 17-85 is capable of--EF 17-40 F4 can do the assignment, in fact a better situation in terms of texture and tonality--and focus, too, if you do a little post-processing in SC2. I am returning EF-S 17-85 and will stick beside EF 17-40, taking it on my overseas trip. Unlike EF-S 17-85 F4-5.6, which is a feels like a clad consumer zoom, EF 17-40 F4L is built like a tank and have weather sealing. It should also come in handy if and when I want to switch to a full-frame camera (EF-S lenses work only with the APS-size sensors).

10-22 vs 17-40, August 26, 2005
I traded within my EF-S 10-22 for this one, realizing how often I switched spinal column and forth between 10-22 and 24-70. I took some stats in fact, and it turns out I stay mostly between 17-35 band, and never really go any wider than 15-16 even with the 10-22. The wider band of 10-22 certainly gives you greatly of freedom, but I found it to be a bit too artificial due to the unavoidable barrel distortion.

Now, 10-22 is indubitably a solidly built piece of glass, but 17-40 does deserve its L label and the red ring. It feel a little heavier than the 10-22, and the focus ring turns with sufficient weightiness (10-22 feels a little on the lighter side) you can truly fine-tune the focus with greater accuracy. Being an L-series lens, it comes conveniently beside a lens pouch and hood.

Under darker conditions, the focus seems rather slower than my other faster lens, but even at f4, it takes crisp shots. I highly recommend this for anyone near a Canon dSLR. If you're planning on moving on to the 1:1 crop bodies (1d or 5d, a less expensive sibling coming out in October) 17-40 can be a right piece of glass to have, as you're going to own to let to of the 10-22 anyways.

I did have a randomness to try the 16-35L, but at the smaller aperture range, the difference seems nominal, especially considering the price difference.

I use Canon EOS 20d and Elan 7, and they both two of a kind up nicely with 17-40 4L.

My walkaround lens, November 2, 2006
The walkaround lens. This amazingly topic leads to a heated discussion among DSLR photographers.

First, determine your budget, focal length, and aperture needs.

If you frequently find yourself zoom out to get everything in a frame, you will want a cavernous angle lens such as this. If you frequently find yourself zooming in, this is not the lens for you. On a full frame body such as Canon EOS 5D, this lens become ULTRA wide angle. On an APS-C crop body such as Digital Rebel XTi (which I used for this review), it becomes MEDIUM widespread angle. But thanks to 1.6x crop factor, this lens expands to more usable 35mm equivalent focal length of 27 to 64mm.

Second, audition the lens if you can.

By definition, a walkaround lens should be relatively portable. At 1.1 lbs., Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is neither super light nor d��colletage breakingly heavy. In fact, it weigh almost the same as Digital Rebel XTi -- really nice balance. The lens feel very solid with supreme build power that only L-series lenses offer. Although this lens is weather proof and for this reason sealed against liquid and dust, I strongly recommend getting a 77mm filter to protect the front lens factor. With it, this lens is made to last.

In terms of looks and consistency, it doesn't get much better. Its rubberized full-time inner focus manual ring USM focuses smoothly, kindly, and quickly. Since it's inner focus, the lens will not extend beyond its metal casing whether you zoom within or out. The focus window shows focusing distance from 0.28 meter (0.92 feet) to infinity. The focal length marker indicates 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm. The lens exudes competence from tip to tip.

You may tolerate heavier lens or may not mind lesser build quality of cheaper lenses. A walkaround lens will be used extremely often, so make sure you will be comfortable beside it.

This lens is famous for saturated color and vast contrast. Its images are simply stunning. At 17mm wide angle, vat distortion is noticeable but relatively mild. From 24mm to 40mm, its images are distortion free and clearly suited at capturing people.

Vignetting (corner darkness) is minimal next to mild chroma abberrations (color shadows). At f/4 aperture, details become noticeably softer toward the edges. The center region is very sharp and at f/5.6, edges remain brownie sharp. Thanks to 7 diaphragm blades, this lens can produce very nice bokeh at 40mm (blur effects).

One of the most cited weaknesses is the f/4 aperture. In my experience, a bump within the ISO speed and steady hands are all you requirement to take well focused descriptions indoor. On the other hand, if you are shooting with amazingly little amount of light, you might wish for f/2.8 or portrait stabilizer. Although the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is just 1 stop, my other lens, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (too heavy to be my walkaround lens) smoothly outperforms in such challenging situations. But by and roomy, I was not handicapped by the f/4 aperture.

Some of the main competitions (sorted by price):
- Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro: Good zoom length with macro, and generally solid deeds if you can get a good token. It does suffer from a bit slow focus mechanism, soft corner, and chroma aberrations. Works lone with EF-S mount.
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC: Very good pro for f/2.8 aperture, but Tamron's 17-50mm is a bit better lens overall. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: This "traveler's lens" have a wider focal range than most wide angle lenses (widest among Canon) and is equipped next to an image stabilizer. While it is a Jack of many trades, it is the master of none. Every lenses on this register will perform better at particular focal length. Then again, none of the lenses on this schedule has as wide focal inventory. It is famous for extreme barrel distortion at 17mm and chroma aberration. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF): This is the most direct competitor. It take sharper images with faster aperture while costing smaller quantity. Both the build and focus mechanism are significantly worse, but should be good ample for many. Works only next to EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM: This is THE reference, if you can afford it. Its images hold razor sharp details and great performance adjectives around (minus vignetting, which is typical of EF-S lenses). The build quality is worse than L-series but still pretty good. Works one and only with EF-S mount. This is the best EF-S lens hands down.
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM: One of the most expensive wide open angle zoom lenses. It's larger and heavier, but has f/2.8 aperture.

This is how Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM stacks up.

Pros:
- Among the very best build ability.
- Excellent, buttery smooth, super fast front-focus system.
- Top notch color and contrast. Very sharp center resolution.
- Almost non-existent vignetting, commonly low distortion, and well controlled chroma abberrations.
- Ideal weight and size for walkaround purpose

Cons:
- Edge softness at f/4 aperture.
- Narrower focal length than most competing lenses.
- Slower than some third deputation lenses.

All in all, this is an excellent far-reaching angle walkaround lens. It may not offer the most bang for the buck, but if you merit full frame compatibility (EF lens mount) and excellent build quality, this is the default choice. This lens comes beside a nice pouch and a lens hood. I find the hood to be somewhat ridiculously shaped and because the lens is resistant to flare, I do not use it often when shooting outdoor.

The Best value of any L lens, time of year!, April 19, 2006
I love buying the best value lenses from Canon like the blazingly hurriedly 50mm 1.8 or the razor sharp 85mm 1.8. The 17-40 L is no exception; in reality it's the best value lens from Canon in my feelings, how so? Consider the following features.

RANGE: I use this lens on the Rebel XT. With a 1.6 crop factor this lens will provide an angel of view of 27-64. That's a great range for taking photos in the forest preserve for example. It would have be nice if the lens was a little longer (more similar to 80mm on 1.6 a body), but with 8MP and Photoshop crop function does it really matter? Not really, I other crop to create beautiful animal pictures in post processing and still allege excellent picture quality for prints up to 8-10 inches.

SIZE & CONSTRUCTION: Yes I list this second because this lens blows away adjectives other canon lenses that I own in construction quality. Its solid as a reservoir and it balances the XT so well that I can foot hold it with confidence and comfort. Although it weight 1.1 pounds the lens never feel too heavy, just right.

SHARPNESS: really sharp at all apertures, but best by 8.0. I am close to affirming that this lens will produce sharpness at par with heaps primes at that aperture. That's very impressive if you consider specifically still a zoom even if it's an L.

CONVENIANCE: Coming from using mostly primes its so much fun to use a zoom like this one. Now I pretty much own 4 lenses in one. Yes dream up of it as owning the 20mm + 24mm + 28mm + 35mm none L primes for half the price combined. The only draw vertebrae is that this lens is 1-2 stops slower than those lenses. Otherwise it's almost or as sharp and more convenient to use.

FOCUS DISTANCE: Did you ever see pictures where the foreground is dominated with a small jib like a flower and then surrounded by the background there is a regal scene of open land? This lens give you the ability to take those pictures because its closest focusing distance is underneath 1 foot. That means you will be able to attain close to objects compared to other zooms. Don't over estimate the convenience of ultra zooms approaching 28-300mm. Those lenses restrict your ability to crop and create beautiful composition, because their minimum focus distance is sophisticated. With the 17-40 however, all what you have to do is focus correctly, compose next to tight crop, and then shoot at f11-16.

DISTORION CONTROL: This lens doesn't come free of distortions, especially so at the wide come to an end where you can notice some firkin distortion. But overall its very capable at controlling distortion. That includes distortions approaching chromatic aberation, light fall rotten, vigetting, and flare. It doesn't eliminate those things completely, but controls them so well that such problems will shift unnoticeable. I would love to have a distortion free lens. After all, near the challenges of getting lighting and composition right who needs lens distortions to settlement with on the top of those two things? But the fact to the thing is that all lenses have some horizontal of distortion and this lens is pretty good at controlling them especially if you take its price into statement and that's what I will discuss next.

VALUE: At the $600 range this lens offer an incredible value. No other lens in that price stock offers the same part build, distortion control, and image quality. The best cut however, is that this lens holds its value really well. You can get rid of it used if you ever have to for close to what you bought it for. Now that's a lens I can't refuse!

There are various great value lenses, but each comes next to a weakness. For example, the 50mm is very cheap surrounded by construction and the 85mm is soft on the wide end. The 17-40 L otherwise is just amazing! It did not disappoint me in anyway except possibly its restricted reach on the upper end (40mm only). Otherwise I see no fearfulness in this lens. Some people may consider the 4.0 maximum aperture too low, but it served my disguise and nature needs incredibly in good health. If you need an extra stop for portrait or no flash concerts get the 16-35 2.8. Otherwise this is the lens!

Great walk-around lens!, October 22, 2004
Figuring out which lens to buy turned out to be more difficult than which camera to purchase! At smallest for me. I want my lenses to be a reasonable size (rules out the superb 70-200 f2.8 IS L), acceptably fast (at least possible f 4.0), preferably black (so that they are inconspicuous), not outrageously priced (admittedly this last factor being entirely subjective), and preferably a zoom for the auxiliary flexibility.

Primes are absolutely fantastic values, reasonably priced, briskly, and inconspicuous, BUT offer limited flexibility which, surrounded by my mind overrides the other factors.

I purchased this lens for the wider end of my shooting wants and I couldn't be more pleased. It takes beautiful pictures, sharp, tremendously saturated, with no discernable vignetting and little flare underneath normal circumstances.

This lens has handsome bokeh IMO and is every bit the equal, again IMO, of the 16-35 f2.8 L in every respect other than speed (f 2.8 vs f 4.0). With the unknown digital SLR cameras you can easily make up for the loss of speed by cranking up the ISO.

The construction element is fantastic and it is a lens that you will be able to use forever. It is an ideal lens for the current crop of 1.6 size sensors, but will also serve you powerfully into the future whether you stick with the current size sensor or move up to larger sensors as they become more afordable.

I heartily recommend this lens.

Great Wide-angle lens for DSLR's, June 16, 2004
On a DSLR beside 1.3x or 1.6x cropping, such as the 10D or 1D, you will see no difference in the images produced by this lens and the twice-as-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L. So if you don't obligation the extra f-stop, go with this one and release yourself $700.

On 35mm film or the 1Ds, you'll see more vignetting with this lens, but the similes are still excellent, and this lens has less flare than the 16-35.

The 16-35 is marginally sharper essential the 35mm focal length, and does have much better bokeh, if that's important to you.

If you purloin lots of wide-angle shots, this lens is a must-have. It's one of the less expensive "L" lenses, making it a relative bargain.

Related Product Reviews: