Comments on: Canon 17-40mm “L” Lens Mini-Review

By: ronsb

ronsb — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:55:29 +0000

All, I’m curious what your experience or others’ might be with the Canon 17-55mm IS f/2.8 v. this one? I’ve heard that they are comparable in terms of sharpness despite the L designation of the lens you reviewed. I’m looking to add a lens in this focal range and the ability to open up wide is important to me since I shoot often indoors with natural light. (Obviously, the IS is nice but the fact that the 17-55 will be confined to a 1.6 body is a little limiting when I look to the future). I’ve also considered the 24-70 L f/2.8 (pricey!) but again, with a 1.6 body, that’s really a 30ish mm lens–which seems to limit the wide angle versatility.

By: ronsb

ronsb — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:55:29 +0000

By: ROB

ROB — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:55:50 +0000

As Colin said the drawback on a 16-35mm is the filter size. The 70-200 F2.8 IS, the 300mm F4 IS all share the same 77mm filter size.

This makes them all attractive as camera bag cousins. Filters are cheap (compared to lenses) but we all have a finite budget, business or recreational photographer.

By: ROB

ROB — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:55:50 +0000

As Colin said the drawback on a 16-35mm is the filter size. The 70-200 F2.8 IS, the 300mm F4 IS all share the same 77mm filter size.

This makes them all attractive as camera bag cousins. Filters are cheap (compared to lenses) but we all have a finite budget, business or recreational photographer.

By: Barrie

Barrie — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:55:13 +0000

@Scott.
Thanks.
(Messing with my brother’s “Bigma” also conspired to steer me towards the Sigma.) ;-)

And you’re quite right…pilot error often plays a big factor.
Although I’m pretty certain I didn’t goof when doing my lens swap tests, I’d wager in it’s rental history, the lens often had ‘custom recalibrations’ imposed on the USM by people cranking MF in AF mode…
I do recall the 17-40 being a very solid bit of kit…and seeing crisp pics (like yours) is another reason why I keep “L” glass on the list.

By: Barrie

Barrie — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:55:13 +0000

@Scott.
Thanks.
(Messing with my brother’s “Bigma” also conspired to steer me towards the Sigma.) ;-)

By: Colin

Colin — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:03:20 +0000

I bought this lens recently and found it is an excellent lens for my 350D. I was looking at the 24-70L lens (I had the 28-70L before) but decided that 24mm is just not wide enough on my old 350D. The 16-35mkII was just out at that time and like many of you said, it is a bit pricy. The biggest ‘turn-off’ of this lens the 82mm filter. So, 17-40 is the obvious choice and I do not regret getting it at all. And even if I am going to upgrade to the future FF Canon DSLRs, I am sure I will still be a happy man with it.