[Canon EF-S 17-40mm f/4L USM] We are satisfied and would buy it again.
From Nicolas1965
We have the lens is now slightly more than 2 years in use and take photographs so much. We use it to in order to document interior spaces – on a regular basis twice a week. As a camera, we have a 5D it.
The title is the summary already anticipated. In particular, we can confirm that through the lens size, weight and finish up Very good in the handling / handling deserves.
The optical performance is not entirely uncontroversial, the opinions differ. The issue heated up the minds sharp. This my opinion / observation: The aged between 17 and about 22 mm recorded images show sharp drop at the edge of the image is image objects. This sharp drop is acceptable according to my discretion, and also depends on the aperture setting. In this focal length range are lower but significant Vignetierungen on. These can be with current RAW weggerechnet While developers are left with our interior shots but clear color (in outdoor might otherwise be made by). This example takes Vignetierung at 20 vs.. 17 mm from the already visible, as well as from 4 to aperture aperture 5.6. For me, therefore, 20mm aperture at 5.6 in the standard of the “attack”. I falls below this limit, requires the inclusion in the knowledge that they will contain technical errors. To the photo will tolleriere however, and I’m also not “bleidigt” if the inclusion in the Papierkob goes.
A possible further cause of uncertainty is recognized, the fact that often the screen covered items duetlich position closer to the camera than objects in the image center and thus no longer be focused sharpness level.
For absolutely remarkable, I think the most extensive list of freedom. If I already distortion in the viewfinder can recognize, then the lens is gone for me. For me, distortion weighs much heavier than a moderate sharpness waste (we talk for a long time not blur) on the screen. So here’s really great praise.
And we should also remember: Even a few years ago would have been of such a lens at all and then at this price not dared to dream.
Due to the frequent use and associated pollution frequent the front lens, we now have a few weeks ProtectStar filters purchased. Wi want to simply avoid, in the course of time Putzspuren on the front lens revealed. Increased pollution of the front lens has certainly with their size (77mm) and also with very short scattered aperture to be done. But this is simply due to the 17mm.
Why is it at all, this lens has become? In the past I had two of two lenses, foreign purchases of bad luck with the mechanics. And both already within 4 weeks after purchase. So I basically decided for original lenses. From the basic price-performance ratio and the opinions in the forums was represented, it was just the lens of choice. The 16-35 is much more expensive (because again, we would simply have to save something) and a non-L, I wanted this focal area in a so-called Full-camera does not confide. Actually I do it to me at the lens selection is quite simple: Is there a suitable L from Canon that I can afford and in the forums will not verissen? Then her damit. In this way, I was spared of Disappointments.
BTW: Until about 2 years after the purchase of second hand sink value of L – and then largely to remain stable. Yes for popular, the discount on the purchase price then at 20-30%.
Abstract:
Weaknesses: pollution gradient of the front lens (design related), Vignetierung
Positive: Practically no distortion (I think noteworthy), inexpensive lens for extreme Full value stable for Sale
Regarding the sharpness I give no assessment – I have no larger than A4 prints from these images – and the term should be the yardstick, not the 100% view on screen. I think the sharpness is very good (no, the sharpness is not sufficient reason for an excellent – but I have to design the handicaps of them are).
translated from amazon.de customer review.
