lightweight,balances well on bigger EOS cameras,a fast 2.8 aperture

+

First thing I noticed off the bat is how well it fits on the 1N. Crystal sharp slides.17 is wide enough for most applications,why spend more on that 16-35 2.8 L lens. I'm a photojournalist so I NEED A FLEXIBLE ZOOM.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EOS 50 2.5 macro,life size converter,17-35 2.8 L,28-70 2.8 L,70-200 2.8 L,(Non IS version), 1.4X converter 300 2.8 L (Non IS version),,,,, 400 2.8 L (IS Version)

perfect range, quiet, speedy motion

none so far

What a great lens. As sharp as my old FD prime lenses and the 17 mm is great.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

FD 24mm, FD 28 mm, sigma 17-35

a real work horse for digital press photographers and photojournalists.

A bit heavy, the AF-MF switch on the two lenses that i have used in recent years came off after 1-2 months of use !! - not expected from this kind of lens.This lens is very sensitive to vibrations and drops.

very sharp lens, I had very good resolts with slide films. I try not to use the 17mm - there is some distortion as you expect. I use it on EOS1n and digital Canon D2000- i have to use the 17mm option for this camera.

Similar Products Used:

I had one lens for 3 years , then got another one a year ago.

SHARP! fast, quick AF, relatively small and light.

Lens hood is quite large and bulky but I can live with that. You don't need that all the time anyway...

This lens, although quite old, is one of the sharpest lenses I ever used. I upgraded from a Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5 and what a differance! This lens is sometimes too sharp! Small, fast and silent! Perfect for running around a city.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5

Zoom range Constant f2.8 aperture Build quality Fine performance

Some distortion but no more than to be expected of a zoom lens.

Just got the first results back using this lens that I bought used via eBay. I'm really pleased with the results. I expected some problems at extremes - 17mm and f2.8 - but the results are much better than I expected / feared. I have to say that for such a wide zoom the results are excellent. I did a series of test shots as well as general pictures and observed the following: there is some distortion at either end but not excesssive considering its a zoom lens and certainly not a problem. At f2.8 there is a little softness compared with f5.6 upwards but again not a problem. I initially thought there was more edge softness at 35mm f2.8 but suspect that what I am actually seeing is out of focus for objects at the extremes of the field of view since objects in the main subject plain are fine. I suspect that a lot of criticism of this lens actually comes from people who don't understand the perspective distortions of any 17mm lens. If your subject isn't absolutely square on to the camera you will see perspective distortions. This isn't the lens's fault its about physics.

Customer Service

Not required on any of my extensive Canon gear.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 20mm f2.8 USM Canon EF 24mm f2.8 Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4.0 Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5-f4.5 USM

Super Sharp, Excellent Built Quality

Quite heavy. Hoods doesn't help much with flare

Let me begin by saying that I've put off buying this lens for a very long time, mainly due to 2 reasons: 1) The bad reviews I've read & heard of this lens, and 2) The price. However, with the introduction of the EF 16-35 f/2.8L, this lens have been made available in the used market at good prices, and I was once again tempted! I decided to take the risk (despite the bad reviews) and got one off e-bay about 2 weeks back. And boy, did I regret it? Abosolutely! I regretted not purchasing this lens long time ago!!!! My test slides & prints came out super sharp, contrasy, and color was rich & brilliant! Even the distortion (barrel & pincushion) were well controlled. Its a extreme wide-angle lens, and of course there will be distortions! However, I realized the trick to control this distortion is to frame your shot accurately, for as long as the flim plane is parallel to your subject, distortion will not be too evident! Nevertheless, I must admit I am extremely satisfied with this lens, and can't understand what's all the fuss about the quality & performance of the lens! If you've always wanted one, go GET IT!

Customer Service

None needed but CPS Malaysia is very friendly & reliable!

Similar Products Used:

EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (piece of crap!)

Price Fit and finish USM F2.8 all the way not like the sima F4.0 at 35MM SIGMA=Junk

Flare but that is what you get with a wide lens. No flare when on the D60 or D30 Much better flare control over the Sigma 17-35 HSM

Well let me start by by saying this lens is dam good for my D60 and dam good and sarp on my EOS 3 and Elan 7 to much bad press. Save you money and do not buy the 16-35 L. I got mine as a demo from canon and its like new. It is so much better than my sigma 17-35 HSM. I have tested bowth and the there is a big gap in photo quality and speed. It was my first sigma and last sigma true junk and will not work well on D30 or D60. so back to the canon its such a good lens and the fact that you can get one at a great price since the 16-35L is replaceing this lens its well worth it. It is a must have for Digital and is very sharp and fast well worth the price. So many people grip and grip HELLO its a wide lens and some times you get FLARE as with any wide lens so whats the problem People. Buy it and you will be very happy sharp and crisp photos.

Customer Service

Not needed.

Similar Products Used:

Sigam 17-35HSM Junk broke 3 times in less than a year and not even a tad as sharp as the canon.

Great coverage for the D30 and D60 with the 1.6x factor. Quick USM response. Excellent results at f/4 and smaller. Much better pricing than the 16-35mm replacement.

After all the bad press this lens has received at this site (along with some "good" reviews), I was determined to buy this lens and evaluate it myself. I did this for 2 reasons: (1)It's the PERFECT focal length for my recently acquired D60. I like having a 28mm in my bag, which is what you get at 17mm on a D60 or D30. (I have the 20-35mm L, 28-70mm L and the 70-200 L) and (2) it was $600 leass than the newer 16-35mm that replaces it. So I conducted an in-depth comparison between the 17-35mm, 20-35mm, and 28-70mm lenses. The camera was placed on a tripod to make sure the views were the same and any possible "shake" was eliminated. First, I compared the the 17-35mm and the 20-35mm at 20mm and 28mm using f/5.6 and f8. I than compared the 17-35mm with the 28-70mm at 28mm and 35mm, also using f/5.6 and f/8. I loaded all of these images on my computer and brought them two at a time (same focal length and aperture) into Photoshop. This was a fair head-to-head comparison. I viewed each at 100% and 200% and could see no difference in sharpness or contrast! Remember, that on a D60, because of the 1.6X multiplier, the CMOS "loses" the corners, so any falloff of sharpness won't be apparent. But my interest in conducting these comparisons was for compatability with my D60. It is certainly possible that the "softness" that others have complained about might be present on the edges, not revealed in the test I conducted.I also determined in separate testing, that NONE of these lenses were extremely sharp (no surprise) at f/2.8. Here's the bottom line: if you have gone digital, or are planning to, you will be totally satisfied with this lens in most shooting situations. Or you can spend 50-60% more for 1 more millimeter and get the most current version of this lens and get results perhaps more to your liking. But I did "road test" the 16-35mm a camera store and saw nothing that convinced me that I should "pop" for the difference! There are some very good buys on pre-owned 17-35mm on ebay that make trying one worthwhile. I bought mine on ebay feeling confident I could easily resell it for the price I paid if the lens turned out to be unsatisfactory.

Customer Service

Not required

Similar Products Used:

The following Canon lenses: 20-35mm L, 28-70mm L.

Build Quality, fast AF, Resistance to flare

NOT REALLY SHARP ! Amateur-Class image quality, close focussing only to 0,42m

I bought this lens for landscape photography and never got satisfiing results. It''s not really bad overall but the lack of sharpness especially at 17 and 35 mm is significant. Despite this contrast is average and build quality o.k. but the optical performance doesn''t deserves the "L"-tag! There''s no secret that many canon users haven''t been satisfied with this lens and asked for an replacement. I sold mine after 6 month and got the 20-35 USM which offers better image quality. If you can afford the 16-35, get it, otherwise get the 20-35 USM!

Customer Service

not needed

Similar Products Used:

Canon 20-35 USM (better!); Canon 2,8/16-35 L (MUCH better !!!)

Really nice landscape lens. Wicked for macros with a 12mm extension tube. Compared to the 16-35, a bargain.

Not close focusing. Distortion noticeable if you shoot rectangles for a living.

I almost bought a prime 20 mm lens because of what I saw for the reviews on this site, but I''m lazy and after trying a prime didn''t like the lack of composition possibilities. I thought I''d pay in distortion and lack of sharpness, but I use this lens for landscapes and stop it down anyway. I shot a couple rolls of Velvia last weekend and was EXTREMELY satisfied with the results. Colors popped (well what do I expect with Velvia?) and images were razor-sharp. The 2 times I used it at f2.8 for experimentation were macros and I couldn''t tell a lack of sharpness (and yes, I know what soft it, I have the 28-90. ugh.) I checked some rectangles and did note barrel distortion at 17 and pincushioning near 35, but I can''t complain. It''s a great lens, and coming with me this weekend up the Lehigh River.