| Author | Thread | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 07:53:08 AM · #1			 | 
		
		Does anyone have any experience with the Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM lens?  If so do you have any example pics and what is your opinion?
 
  |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 12:13:00 PM · #2			 | 
		
		| I'd like to hear some opinions on that lens too, since i'm considering buying it along with 10D in july. |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 12:36:18 PM · #3			 | 
		
		count me in as a satisfied owner - I was not willing to part with the $$$ for the 16-35 f/2.8 at the time, but this lens is a great alternative at a good price for "L" quality glass.
 
 Edit: This review from Luminous Landscapes was a big help to me in deciding whether to purchase this lens.
  Message edited by author 2004-06-12 12:40:10. |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 12:56:43 PM · #4			 | 
		
		| I just bought the lens this week, it is a nice wide angle, i agree that it is probably a better buy at half the price than the 16-35mm.  It is a nice lens from what i can tell so far, I will hopefully take a few shots with it this weekend and will post them later. |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 01:14:39 PM · #5			 | 
		
		I considered this lens when I bought my 10D, but decided against it, because it wasn't wide enough, nor was it long enough. I bought the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 28-135. If you can live with the zoom range on it, it is a great lens, just did not work for me.
  |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 01:44:13 PM · #6			 | 
		
		One of my all-time favourite pictures was taken with that lens:  
 
   |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 01:49:11 PM · #7			 | 
		
		It's a very popular lens (the price is right), and, from what I've read and seen, most owners are satisfied with it. I believe Heida is using it, and if her pictures are any indication for the lens, great stuff can be done with it.
 
 I'm bent on getting an EF 70-200 f/2.8L and therefore lean toward the EF 24-70L f/2.8 USM instead. The difference in price, however, is significant.
  |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 05:57:10 PM · #8			 | 
		
		It is a really good, normal range zoom lens.  Fast to focus, expensive to put a filter on.
  |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/12/2004 07:01:52 PM · #9			 | 
		
		Thanks guys...  I am looking at replacing the 18-55 with this lens next month.  I am buying the 10D MkII on it's release so this is the last lens for me 'til then, so I can stash the cash.
  |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/13/2004 06:32:42 PM · #10			 | 
		
		Some sample pics from the weekend
 
   
 
 Really fast to focus and good results.
  Message edited by author 2004-06-13 19:20:32. |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/13/2004 08:43:17 PM · #11			 | 
		
		Originally posted by BooZon:  I am buying the 10D MkII on it's release so this is the last lens for me 'til then, so I can stash the cash.  |   
 
 I have not heard of a successor to the 10D yet - I am sure something will be coming out in the future, but I have no clue as to what or when. Is there something on the grapevine about this? |  
  | 
		
			| 
				
										
			 | 
			
06/13/2004 11:32:48 PM · #12			 | 
		
		I also bought this lens to replace my 18-55.  I think you'll love it!
 
 I have a very non-technical comparison of the two posted on my site here.
 
 Good luck.
 
 -Will
  |  
  | 
			Home -
			
Challenges -
			
Community -
			
League -
			
Photos -
			
Cameras -
			
Lenses -
			
Learn -
			
			
Help -
			
Terms of Use -
			
Privacy -
			
Top ^
		DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
		
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
		
Current Server Time: 11/04/2025 05:38:43 AM EST.