Pro Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2023
- Posts
- 106
- Likes Received
- 240
- Name
- Steven Aunan
- City/State
- Sacramento, CA
I've had the 17-40mm for about a week now, but haven't spent a ton of time with it. Here are a few photos and some initial impressions.
With the RF adapter, the lens is just as long as the RF 24-105 L, but is slightly lighter and not as bulky. Both lenses share the same filter size (77mm) so the newer EW-83N hood also fits the older lens. The focus ring is a bit stiff (which could be due to its age), but I don't do much manual focus shooting anyway. The zoom ring feels slick and plasticky, but the lens made its debut in 2003 and it is made of plastic. I dig the old-school Canon look. I'm really happy with the focal length (which is why I bought it) and the image quality looks just fine. Would I prefer an F/2.8? Yes. Would I prefer an RF lens? Yes. But I would heartily recommend this lens for anyone on a budget who still wants L quality glass.
I like Ken Rockwell's reviews, so here's the link: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm
With the RF adapter, the lens is just as long as the RF 24-105 L, but is slightly lighter and not as bulky. Both lenses share the same filter size (77mm) so the newer EW-83N hood also fits the older lens. The focus ring is a bit stiff (which could be due to its age), but I don't do much manual focus shooting anyway. The zoom ring feels slick and plasticky, but the lens made its debut in 2003 and it is made of plastic. I dig the old-school Canon look. I'm really happy with the focal length (which is why I bought it) and the image quality looks just fine. Would I prefer an F/2.8? Yes. Would I prefer an RF lens? Yes. But I would heartily recommend this lens for anyone on a budget who still wants L quality glass.
I like Ken Rockwell's reviews, so here's the link: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm