Canon 17-40mm f/4L EF Ultra Wide Angle Lens: A Must-Have for Impressive Photography Review

There are samples with a soapy left side (in full frame) even better on 5 it’s very, very good, given that there are almost no alternatives. Pros below: Dust and moisture protection, USM, 77mm is noticeably cheaper to buy filters than its older brother. With its cons: on a full frame at 17 mm, the edges are still not very tolerable, but there isn’t much, unless you demand from him what he was not created for - that is, a large aperture, and an extended focal length.

Quick take on the product.Different pros: Dust-moisture, constructive, focus speed, picture. Cons: On the crop, no wide angle can be obtained, aperture 4

the lens was taken as a replacement for 35 2.0, because it was not always possible to contain the necessary information in that one, and when shooting on the street, aperture 2.0

shoot on a full frame, but on my 400 it easily allows you to remove the "size" (although you have to take into account the fact of wide-angle)

At first I took it as a staff member on the 300D, there were falls, and sea waves covered me with it (the protective filter was standing at the same time),

With its pros: L-class, price compared to other L, it becomes dust- and moisture-proof, a lens hood and a case are included, With its cons: Chromatic aberrations in contrasts are sometimes VERY large,

Excellent lens for shooting from a tripod at a small aperture You don' light and compact, on a closed aperture, the pictures cannot be distinguished.

Mark II (mainly landscapes) can be seen here and a little later in my LiveJournal: Com, even though this applies not just to 17-40, that is, for instance, everything is sharp on the left./ Therefore, this is already my third 17-40 in a row. I sold it and bought other lenses to try out, including a / 2.8, but I was only able to discern a difference in price, weight, and filter diameter of 82. As a result, don't get too caught up in studying charts, tests, etc.; instead, take more pictures, in…

While I don't claim to be an expert, I can tell that this Canon creation is useless for staff writers (many of whom honestly produce gibberish). While the lens excels at capturing expansive landscapes, it also produces pleasing results when photographing architecture—so long as the subject is sufficiently enough away. cut, I was not impressed, on the FF 5D MarkIII I sung here (I wanted to shoot a picture, try, learn, suffer, and create) https://fotki.

Although it won't fully demonstrate the benefits of a wide perspective on a crop, it is sufficient to call it "regular." Using this stick, a few shots: http://500 http://500 http://500 http://500 http://500

I tried it out on the Canon 50D, but the salesperson talked me out of it by suggesting an EF-S lens with a 2.8 aperture instead. He is a talented artist, and you should definitely check out his work!) You can check out some of the pictures that were shot with this lens right here: on FF on harvest https://500 https://500 More than 5 years ago, I started utilizing this lens in my photography.

the lens was not intended for shooting people, this is so, view of the world" and a wonderful, rich picture. Pros below: Has cons: It reveals its potential on 5D, in combination with 7

Not always sharp at the maximum hole, but does an excellent job with apertures from 5.6 mirrors, posters - at a wide angle, (64) mm, not bad as a moderate portrait. Pros below: Working hole 5.6-8 All image distortions at a wide angle are easily corrected in FS. Cons below: - the mechanism is visible.

/ 2.8 and 28 / 2.8 wide-angle fixed, the combination of very good optical qualities, it is very good, comfortable indoors, however it may be inferior to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 in this one respect only. I recommend checking out these images: 17 mm, with the sun dead center in the shot - https://fotki. 25 mm - https://fotki. While the 40mm focal length and f/4 aperture at this focal length ensure excellent color reproduction and contrast, I did not find it convenient on a crop camera due to…

It was the first Elka for the 50D, to replace the 18-200 (crop) Has some pros: Elka, Excellent construction, With its cons: Aperture (indoors without a flash is difficult), a bit dark And there are no shortcomings for a lens of such price and quality!

etc. buy it with the first glass when I chose it for 20 for most fans the last) Pros below: As a staff member, 430 Cons below: everything is worthy, but the difference is not much .

The lens is just a fairy tale! although the lens has dust and moisture protection, the lens made great friends))) I liked 17-40

With an increase in shutter speed, shooting without a tripod looks like a dubious undertaking (there is no stub) you should pay attention to its (light filter) thickness, distortion and "stabilitylessness".

shoot on a full frame, but on my 400 it easily allows you to remove the "size" (although you have to take into account the fact of wide-angle)

For trips, reportage, the beach, the compartment of the car dropped, the wind blew dust, but for this price, it works out for all the money it costs.