Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras..

Grab Now Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

289 of 304 people found the following review helpful.
The L-lense that puts the L-lense on the map
By J. Chen
Canon's legendary L-lense reputation is built on lense such as the 70-200mm F/2.8, this is the lense that gives the credit to the WOW factor associated with Canon L lense. Sharpness, constrast is second to none.

I know many people are probably deciding between the F/4L F/2.8L and the F/2.8L IS. If you want the most bang for the buck go for the F/2.8L. Why, because if you're serious enough to buy the F/4L you will eventually migrate to this F/2.8L (like many photographers), why because there is nothing going to speed up your shutter speed better than the f/2.8 at the long end when compared to F/4 especially for fast moving targets. Another big advantage is the canon 2x extender which boost this lense to 400mm at the long end with great results and at F/5.6, it is one of the best performing combo at 400mm focal length especially considering the price of a 400mm lense by itself.

If you have cash to burn go for the IS version, but cost increase is a bit steep ($500+), especially considering using a tripod will make the IS an non-issue, and for a shot deserving attention, a tripod or some sort of stablizer should be used anyway might as well save the $500 and put a bit more in for the 17-40mm L lense. :-)

217 of 229 people found the following review helpful.
You get what you pay for
By Colin M. Burnett
This was my first L lens and I am very pleased; zero buyer's regret for me.

When I first started to seriously consider buying one of the 70-200mm lenses I wasn't sure which to buy. I first thought about buying the f/4 version because it was cheaper but then found out the f/2.8 comes with a case (~ $40), tripod ring (~ $120), and a hood (~ $35) in addition to the extra stop in aperture. For the $600 difference it reduces down by about $200 by including additional stuff that you, frankly, should have.

Most notably is the tripod ring which takes the lens weight off the camera body but also balances the camera at the tripod mount. With the f/2.8 attached to my 300D it balances just fine on the tripod foot (even with a EX550 flash). In shooting with a tripod it's very easy to rotate the lens within the ring to go from landscape to portrait without off-balancing the weight.

The extra weight is an issue depending on your muscular build. I can shoot for a couple hours without the weight being bothersome but my fiancee (very petite) has some difficulties. In actual shooting I find the tripod ring comes in handy to put the weight on my palm thus leaving my fingers free to adjust zoom and focus without a hassle while providing a firmer base for stability.

I cannot comment on the f/2.8 IS version since I've never used it but I have seen people selling their f/2.8 IS because it was too heavy.

All-in-all this is an extremely good lens and you get exactly what you pay for: quality. Some day I intend on complementing this lens with the 24-70 f/2.8L for wider angle shots. Of course, if you have the chance to test all three versions of the 70-200mm lens at a store then you certainly should test them for yourself. And, by all means, buy a UV/protector lens.

282 of 300 people found the following review helpful.
Auto-focus is super fast, quiet and spot on
By Grant Brummett
01-01-2009 Canon 5D Mark II Update

Bokeh

Well, the reach my be less but man on man the Bokeh of this lens using the 5D Mark II has to be seen to be believed. Much smoother creamier and richer on the 5D Mark II. Something like double the Bokeh since you can get twice as close, just make sure when shooting at F/2.8 you have enough dept of field.

Sharpness and clarity

The sharpness and clarity wide open at F/2.8 that was just Ok on the 40D is much improved for some strange reason on the 5D Mark II. I would not have figured it this way but it's just plain better. Putting this lens on the 5D Mark II has transformed it from a so so lens to a sharp, high clarity monster even wide open. You wouldn't know it was the same lens I has used on the 40D.

Reach:
The reach of the lens on a full frame sensor camera is half but when indoors shooting weddings this can be a good thing. On the cropped sensor cameras you often find yourself running out of space to back up when you want a wider shot but on the 5D Mark II the 70mm end is actually useful. When shooting outdoors if you can't get pretty close you will want a longer lens. This is when I reach for my excellent Canon 100-400 F/4.5 - F/5.6 IS L Lens.

Vignetting:
On my Canon 40D and Rebel XTi Vignetting or peripheral illumination problems are practically non-existent, but on my new Canon 5D Mark II I use the auto-peripheral illumination correction as with it off it is a problem. But with it ON its no problem at all.

You can either have the 5D Mark II auto-correct peripheral illumination on board for JPEGs or adjust Raw images using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software that came with your Mark II. I have noticed on the full framed 5D Mark II with the peripheral illumination correction turned OFF the 5D Mark II images will severely vignette or be dark in the corners when shot wide open (F/2.8). It's almost like looking through a dark tunnel. It's especially noticeable shot wide open with the sky as a background.

Auto-correct to the rescue!! With the peripheral illumination correction turned ON it's almost magical the darkening in the corners for your JPEG images is gone! If you want you can even shoot in Raw mode and adjust the amount of Vignetting or darkness in the corners for effects such as when shooting portraits and you want to emphasis the person in the middle of the photo. Just open the Raw photo in DPP and click on the NR/Lens / ALO tab and select Lens Aberration Correction Tune and adjust the peripheral illumination to suite by dragging the slider or entering and amount. Or select all the photos in a directory and you can correct all your photos at once. This way you can either have no Vignetting or as much as you want.

Pros:

Tack Sharp at 70-135mm at F5.6 at any distance
Sharp at F2.8 at a distance for some reason but soft up close (10 to 50 feet)
Sharp at F2.8 for indoor non-flash gym / church distance photos any zoom setting. Gets a little soft focused close and at infinity at F2.8
Auto focus tracks moving objects like a laser guided smart bomb! I have many in flight bird photos
Beautifully made with perfect quality
Beautiful deep colors, lots of contrast
Auto-focus is super fast, quiet and spot on even in dim light
White so it's cooler out in the hot summer sun
Comes with nice case and nice lens tripod mount
Pretty good Bokeh better then the F4 70-200 of course but not as good as primes
Really bright in the viewfinder the brightest long lens I've used
This lens has Auto Lens Vignetting correction using peripheral Illumination control see Auto Vignetting comments below:

Cons:

VERY shallow depth of field at F2.8
Costs twice as much as the great F4 70-200
Seems to weigh twice as much as the F4 70-200
Very LARGE and white gets a LOT of attention
Softens a little above 135mm approaching and at 200mm at infinity

Review:

I bought this Lens to use on my Canon Digital Rebel XTi to shoot wild birds, animals at the zoo, sporting events and aircraft shows.

After having taken over 4,000 photos with it and trading out and using my friends F4 70-200 I have the following conclusions.

This lens focuses very FAST!! I have tracked birds in FLIGHT!! It focuses in light so low I don't see how it's focusing.

The F2.8 is MUCH larger then the F4 you have to use these two lenses back to back to really appreciate the difference. Also the lens hood sticks way out on the F2.8 which does protect the lens more but makes a long lens even longer. The F4 is more of a hold all day out shooting lens for the average person the F2.8 more of a tripod lens.

I do love this F2.8 lens, but in hindsight I might have bought the cheaper lighter and smaller non IS F4 lens. We tried several tests using a tripod while using mirror lockup and remote release so camera shake and depth of field were not a variable. We found my F2.8 lens is slightly sharper in the middle at 200mm but the F4 is slightly sharper near the edges. Both lenses were tack sharp edge to edge at 70-135mm at F8 with the F4 lens maintaining more sharpness over all from 135 to 200mm. However I found the F2.8 is brighter looking through the view finder then the F4.

The F2.8 does seem to produce slightly richer color but you can easily make up the difference between the F4 in a photo editor program.

This lens also softens some at F2.8 and gets sharper the closer to F8 you get. I tried several test shots on a tripod using mirror lockup and remote release of a photo test card so camera shake and depth of field were not a variable. Speaking of depth of field at F2.8 the depth of field is so shallow at close range F2.8 is almost unusable. You can take a photo of someone and their nose is tack sharp and their eyes are soft. This could be a plus if you are looking for this effect.

So why do I keep this lens?

I shoot a lot using a tripod and love the included lens tripod mount. The camera and lens are MUCH more stable when the lens is mounted to the tripod then trying to shoot with a long lens with the camera mounted to the tripod and the lens hanging out front. Note: You can buy the lens tripod mount for the F4 lens but it's $150 extra.

I need the extra stops F2.8 gives me for low light indoor photograhy I have gotten shots at F2.8 ISO 1600 I could not have gotten with the F4 lens.

I do like the attention I get and questions.

I love the way this lens is SO bright in the viewfinder, noticeably brighter when framing a shot then the F4.

I don't mind the extra workout carrying it around I need the exercise.

I'm thinking about also buying the F4 70-200 and having both.

Why only 4 stars:

If this lens were tack sharp edge to edge at 200mm at any distance I would have given it 5 stars but felt that this was enough to pull back to 4.
Also the min distance switch is too easy to move, it doesn't need this switch anyway the auto focus is great,

Recommendation:

If you have the money and want a bright in the viewfinder, great color, large, imposing presence tripod mounted lens the F2.8 lens is for you.

If you want to save some money and shoot hand held with a lighter lens and don't need the F2.8 for low light shooting and Bokeh then get the F4 lens.

If you have lots and lots of money buy them both!

9-23-2007 Update

This lens continues to impress me. I have been shooting more around F2.8 at longer reach hand held on cloudy days and inside buildings where flash is not allowed and have found this lens really can work hand held at higher ISO say 400 to 800. I'm thinking about buying the 40D which has higher ISO performance then my Rebel XTi so I can shoot at 1600 ISO and 3200 ISO with less noise.

Filter Update 1-3-2008

After much searching I found the perfect filter. The Hoya Multi Coat HMC Pro1 Protection filter is not supposed to filter the shot just protect the front lens element. I was very worried that it would affect the shot after having tried some other premium filters like the B+W UV which caused the photos to be softer and duller. However, after some tests I found that in some weird way the Hoya Multi Coat HMC Pro1 actually makes the photos seem to have just a little more contrast and be a little sharper then without. I thought I had gotten the test shots backwards and had to retest with a little sign in the photo saying with and without filter in place just to make sure. Really amazing!!! I'm sold!

Update 3-1-2008 Arizona Renaissance Festival

Here's a brief summary of my thoughts when using both the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 USM L and Canon 135mm F/2 USM L at AZ Renaissance Festival.

The first thing I noticed was the zoom can be much more versatile especially at the bird show where it's ability to zoom in and out was nice, but it's minimum focus distance is quite a bit farther. I noticed several times taking face shot close ups that I ran into the stop and it could not focus, so I had to back up. Also knowing that full sharpness was not reached until F/5.6 I kept the lens at this stop to make the shots sharp. But there is no denying its ability to reach out and photograph someone at a distance and then turn around and get a shot close up. Also, the Canon 70-200 really stood out to people. I actually had several people ask what lens it was and could they look at it / hold it. Several workers made jokes about my large canon when I had it mounted.

On the Canon 135mm side there is no denying the quality of the photos and the ability to blur the background and still have a sharp subject at wide open apertures. The creamy smooth Bokeh and quality of the photos make them treasures I will show off and print for years to come. There is some 3d quality that these photos possess that the 70-200 just does not have. The Canon 135mm is much more stealthy with people not really thinking you are taking their photo from far away. No one asked to hold it or even what kind of lens it was. The workers didn't make jokes about having a large canon in fact there were a couple of workers that said they had seen bigger.

I love them both, but if I had to choose only one to take to the Renaissance Festival it would be the Canon 135mm F/2 USM L. It's half the weight, black and stealthy and takes photos I will treasure forever.

3-28-2008 Update:

I still love this lens and it was my first L lens. It's funny how much more attention this lens will get everywhere I go. You will be asked what news agency you are working for, can I see it, can I hold it, how much does it cost? Things I have never been asked about my Canon 85mm F/1.2 L II lens which cost hundreds more. So if you want a great 70-200 zoom and crave attention and can carry the weight this lens is for you. I still love mine and plan on keeping it forever!

8-18-2008 Update:

I find myself falling in love with this lens all over again. A friend has borrowed it for a few months to use and I went on a shoot this weekend with it and wow!! When you use Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to make your JPEG from RAW this lens is a razor blade even at F/2.8! There is that much difference in processing using DPP then usin Adobe Camera Raw!!! It makes my Canon 70-200 F/2.8 look almost as sharp as my Canon 135 F2.

The only strange thing when I first got the lens back it focuses more slowly then normal for a few shots about like the focusing on my Canon 85mm F/1.2 which can be a little slow. But within a few hundred shots seems to be back to the milisecond focus speed. I wonder if he left it out in the car in the hot Arizona sun?

Still get's a huge amount of attention. You would think it was a Canon 300mm F/2.8 the way people stare. Guess the white L lenses are still pretty rare out and about. My friends Canon 70-200 F4 L is just as sharp but the F/2.8 lets in twice as much light! But the F/2.8 feels almost twice as fat in the hand and after a day of shooting is heavier!! Still when I was already at ISO 3200 and F/2.8 yeasterday at a very dark church function I was stopping action that you could not do with the Canon 70-200 F/4.

11-07-2008 Update:

This is still one of my most used and versatile lenses. And I've noticed in some of my photos this really cool almost 3D effect around the main subject usually at wider apertures. My only regret is that it does not have IS. After buying two lenses that have it I can see that in really dark situations IS can really make a huge difference. Also there is the one single spec of dust in the middle of the outer most element. But it does not seem to affect the photos.

It's taken many beautiful photos for me and I will probably keep it as long as I live.

Auto Vignetting peripheral illumination control:

Canon has this super sweet Auto Lens Vignetting correction that works with this lens both in camera with JPEG's and in RAW using peripheral Illumination control in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) when using newer Canon digital EOS cameras (Canon Rebel XSi, 40D, 5D Mark II etc.) . No more vignetting when shooting wide open!!! When shooting Raw open the file(s) in DPP and click on NR/Lens Lens Aberration Correction / Tune and click on Peripheral illumination. The cameras listed above have already picked up the amount of vignetting based on focusing distance, zoom setting and F stop from the lens and the camera has saved the information with the Raw file. You can then adjust the amount under Peripheral Illumination if you don't like the amount automatically suggested. If you shot JPEG then you get the auto amount. SWEET!!!

Verdict:

You can't go wrong if you need 70-200mm and fast speed.

01-03-2009 Canon 5D Mark II Update:

This lens is actually just behind my Canon 100-400 IS L Lens in the zoom sharpness and clarity department but it's no where near as versatile on my 5D Mark II as the 100-400. Still it's a must have lens when shooting weddings when you need the super Bokeh background melting power of an F/2.8 aperture and lower light power of an F/2.8 aperture. The Bokeh that was Ok on the 40D is smoother creamier and richer on the 5D Mark II. Still I almost wish I had bought the Image Stabilized version instead. I'm finding that on the 5D Mark II you can really sharpen up images when shooting in raw and processing in Canon's Digital Photo Professional. As that and the price were my only complaint about the IS version of this lens I now wish I had purchased it instead.

Lenses I currently own:

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS Zoom Lens Ultra sharp, great colors, great low light, poor zoom action
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Rebel XTi Kit Zoom lens Muddy, slow, pile of junk
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors, sharp zoomed 17 to 24mm and stopped down, ultra smooth zoom action, light weight
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors and contrast, sharp zoomed 40 to 70mm, zoom a little stiff at first, heavy, repair prone!
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Good budget portrait lens, light weight, disposable, sharp from F/2.5
Canon EF 85mm F/1.2 L II The best portrait lens for female and children clients, buttery smooth Bokeh, heavy and expensive it shares sharpness with 135mm
Canon EF 135mm F/2.0 L The best portrait lens for males and tied with Canon 85mm F 1/.2 for sharpest lens I own, buttery smooth Bokeh
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L Zoom Lens Fantastic colors, sharp for a zoom, very versatile ego boosting and attention getting and heavy! My favorite zoom lens that I own!!!
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS Zoom Lens super colors, sharp for a zoom, extremely versatile, variable Bokeh can be great or bad, even more ego boosting and attention getting when extended and 400mm reach!!

My next lens purchase I'm saving for right now: 'Canon EF 300mm F/2.8 IS L the finest lens ever

See all 170 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs..

GET Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

929 of 969 people found the following review helpful.
The answer to the crop sensor problem.
By Jim Krupnik
My take on this lens is that it is an "L" quality optic in a fine, non "L" package. There is nothing else on the market to compete with it (nothing at all), and it produces supurb images. It isn't an f/2.8 lens, but it is close enough for most uses. The competition from Tamron is a full stop slower, not as sharp, and is awful in dim light compared to the Canon 10-22 lens (sorry, Tamron fans, but the Tamron lens isn't even playing in the same ballpark).

I use this lens on a 30D body, and I always keep it on hand if I'm doing any indoor, or tight group photography. It is the perfect solution to the perennial problem of not having enough room to capture all the kids at a birthday party in one shot because your back is up against a wall. This lens will just about get your toes into the picture at the widest setting, yet delivers tack sharp, colorful, and contrasty images. The auto focus is spot on, silent, and fast. It is a must have lens for the active amateur, or any pro using a 1.6 crop factor camera. You simply can't beat this lens with anything available on the market today.

That beng said, do not try to convince yourself that this will make a good "walkaround" lens. It isn't. Even at max length, it is far too short to live on your camera as a standard lens. You need this lens, even if you don't know it yet, but it should not be your first lens, as it will only be used 15 to 20 percent of the time. At those times, it's performance simply cannot be equaled by any other zoom lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. You will be amazed by the quality of this lens. It rivals the performance of modern prime lenses, presents a bright viewfinder image, and delivers the goods in tight situations.

This is not a casual assessment, nor a Canon "feel good" moment on my part. I developed my first B&W contact prints in 1964, in my own darkroom at the age of 9 (my parents were concerned:)), and have been an avid photographer ever since. Small, medium, and large format cameras and lenses have passed through my hands over the years, and Canon has become my favorite small format brand. Still, Canon builds some trash lenses that should be avoided. The 10-22 USM is not one of them :).

Before you go out and buy this lens, you should already own the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 lens. That is the king of 1.6 crop factor standard lenses, and includes the awesome Canon IS feature. It will end up being mounted on your camera 80% of the time, and keep you smiling after every shoot. Get that lens first. Then, get the 10-22mm lens. Then, let your imagination run wild, and plan on serious telephoto lenses for the future. Trust me or not, the two lenses mentioned above will provide you with photographic tools that will astound you. Get them in your kit as soon as you can afford them.

A little warning about either lens.... Some here will argue the point, but with either lens, get a GOOD quality UV filter that is multi-coated on both sides, and built extra thin to avoid vignetting at wide lens settings. A good filter will cost a little less than one hundred Dollars, and can cost up to one hundred forty Dollars. The minimum brand would be Hoya Pro 1 multi coated filters, and the ante goes up from there.

Everything else is garbage, including the Canon "sharp cut" filter that costs less than fifty bucks. No kidding, no conjecture. If you use cheap filters, you will never see what your lens can really do. Ever. No doubt that many will respond with claims that their twenty Dollar filter works just fine, but they simply don't know any better, and have never used their expensive equipment to it's full potential. It's akin to a Chevy owner passing judgement on a Mercedes Benz. The Chevy might feel real good, but until you own the Mercedes, you just have no clue.

Bottom line.... Make sure that the quality of your filters exceed the quality of your lenses. Yes, at a hundred bucks a pop for a 77mm filter, it hurts, but you will never regret it. Also, Amazon does not stock lens hoods for all non L Canon lenses. The price is stupid high for those hoods, but they make a night and day difference in in picture quality. Whenever you order a non L Canon lens, find a web seller who has the hood in stock, and get it right now. Again, you will never regret owning it.

That's it for my review/rant. Buy this lens. Buy the 17-55 IS f/2,8 first. Buy the lens hoods for both. Toss any "kit" lenses that came with the camera in the trash bin (where they belong), and be very happy.

277 of 294 people found the following review helpful.
The best lens I own
By M. A. Filippelli
I have had this lens for several months now and let me start out by saying WOW. I looked at the lens in the store along with the Sigma 12-24 and I was in total awe of what I saw though the view finder with the Canon 10-22. This is an ultra wide angle lens that is incredible. I went home and thought about where I would use this lens and determined that I would use it quite a bit. I went ahead and bought the lens and I continue to be more impressed with it every time I use it. I have used the lens for both close-up (which can give you some very interesting distortion shots)and wide angle shots with great success.

The 10-22mm is equivalent to 16-35mm field of view using a canon 20D which is not a full frame sensor. With a minimum focal distance of .24m (about 9.5 inches) you can get very close to objects and still get alot of focal width in the photo. There is incredible clarity in the lens. The photos I have taken are very clear with only a slight hint of softening at the corners at 10mm; everything else is sharp after that. There is a little barrel distortion at 10mm but everything else up to 22mm is nice. I have not gotten any light flare in my photos. The Ultrasonic motor is very quiet. The depth of field is outstanding. A slim UV filter helps prevent some slight vignetting at 10mm. With a maximum aperture that ranges from f/3.5 to f/4.5, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is a medium speed lens. I would recommend using a tripod if you are at all unsure about your ability to hold the camera still for action shots with this lens. The lens it's self is fairly light weight. If you are going to use filters the lens requires 77mm.

The lens can produce some interesting distortion shots if you are taking close-ups and are not perpendicular to the object. For close-up shots with out distortion it is best to be perpendicular to the object.

Inside the lens housing there are three aspherical lens elements and a Super UD element that produce clear vibrant shots. The lens it's self sturdily built and comfortable to handle.

UPDATE 7/30/2011: I still love this lens. It functions every bit as well as it did the day I got it.

600 of 648 people found the following review helpful.
Very good lens, but expensive
By Svend
I am very impressed with this lens. I didn't realize just how wide-angle this lens was. At 10mm, I can stand just a few feet in front of a 13-story building, and get the whole thing in the picture, from the entrance to the top of the building.

As with all very-wide lenses, you have to be careful that you don't have people at the edges of the frame or too close to the lens, or they will appear very distorted when taking pictures at 10mm. Also note that a wide angle lens is not easy to use at first to create compelling images, as it's very easy to include too much clutter in your compositions.

PROS
- optical quality is excellent (deserves an "L" lens designation)
- uses the higher quality ring-type USM focusing
- minimum focusing distance is very close
- surprisingly lightweight
- very flare-resistant even without hood
- the only option for EOS digital cameras (Rebel, Rebel XT, 20D) to get true wide angle shots due to the smaller APS-C sensor in those cameras.

CONS
- It's expensive! But at least it is cheaper than a year ago.
- The lens is a little soft in the corners at 10mm, but is very sharp at 12mm and up.
- Canon has not formally committed to how long they will continue to make cameras and lenses using the EF-S system.
- The lens currently only works on the lower-end dSLR cameras -- the 10D, 1D, 1Ds, and 5D cameras cannot use this lens.
- The hood is not included with this lens, but it's such as ugly hood and the lens doesn't have flare problems, so I don't really think it is necessary anyway.

In 5 years when you upgrade your camera, there is a possibility that it will not support this lens. This depends on what direction Canon goes in making camera sensors:
1) continue to make cameras that use the smaller APS-C sensor, and keep improving its density to support more and more resolution. This will help keep the dSLR cameras smaller and lighter, and will necessitate making EF-S lenses the standard.
2) make the sensors match the size of a frame of 35mm film. And at the same time increase the density to yield even more resolution. Right now sensors this big are very expensive to produce.

I now think that #2 is more likely to happen. All the other lenses out there are built for a 35mm-film-sized sensor, and now that Canon has released another full-frame camera (5D) at a lower price, I'm betting that in another few years the APS-C sensor will be practically obsolete. A 5D body and 16-35 or 17-40 lens will give you better results than a 20D with this lens, but the difference in price between the two setups is a few thousand dollars right now.

The 10-22 is an excellent lens, but it will probably not hold its value as well as the Canon 16-35 and 17-40 lenses. A slightly more affordable alternative is the Sigma 10-20mm, which sounds like it nearly equals the optical quality of this lens.

See all 301 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras..

GET Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

778 of 792 people found the following review helpful.
My walkaround lens
By NutMac
The walkaround lens. This very topic leads to a heated discussion among DSLR photographers.

First, determine your budget, focal length, and aperture needs.

If you frequently find yourself zooming out to get everything in a frame, you will want a wide angle lens such as this. If you frequently find yourself zooming in, this is not the lens for you. On a full frame body such as Canon EOS 5D, this lens becomes ULTRA wide angle. On an APS-C crop body such as Digital Rebel XTi (which I used for this review), it becomes MEDIUM wide angle. But thanks to 1.6x crop factor, this lens expands to more usable 35mm equivalent focal length of 27 to 64mm.

Second, audition the lens if you can.

By definition, a walkaround lens should be relatively portable. At 1.1 lbs., Canon's EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is neither super light nor neck breakingly heavy. In fact, it weighs almost the same as Digital Rebel XTi -- really nice balance. The lens feels very solid with supreme build quality that only L-series lenses offer. Although this lens is weather proof and therefore sealed against liquid and dust, I strongly recommend getting a 77mm filter to protect the front lens element. With it, this lens is made to last.

In terms of looks and feel, it doesn't get much better. Its rubberized full-time inner focus manual ring USM focuses smoothly, quietly, and quickly. Since it's inner focus, the lens will not extend beyond its metal casing whether you zoom in or out. The focus window shows focusing distance from 0.28 meter (0.92 feet) to infinity. The focal length marker indicates 17, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm. The lens exudes quality from tip to tip.

You may tolerate heavier lens or may not mind lesser build quality of cheaper lenses. A walkaround lens will be used very often, so make sure you will be comfortable with it.

This lens is famous for saturated color and deep contrast. Its images are simply stunning. At 17mm wide angle, barrel distortion is noticeable but relatively mild. From 24mm to 40mm, its images are distortion free and perfectly suited at capturing people.

Vignetting (corner darkness) is minimal with mild chroma abberrations (color shadows). At f/4 aperture, details become noticeably softer toward the edges. The center region is very sharp and at f/5.6, edges remain fairy sharp. Thanks to 7 diaphragm blades, this lens can produce very nice bokeh at 40mm (blur effects).

One of the most cited weaknesses is the f/4 aperture. In my experience, a bump in the ISO speed and steady hands are all you need to take well focused images indoor. On the other hand, if you are shooting with very little amount of light, you might wish for f/2.8 or image stabilizer. Although the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is just 1 stop, my other lens, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (too heavy to be my walkaround lens) easily outperforms in such challenging situations. But by and large, I was not handicapped by the f/4 aperture.

Some of the main competitions (sorted by price):
- Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro: Good zoom range with macro, and generally solid performance if you can get a good sample. It does suffer from a bit slow focus mechanism, soft corner, and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC: Very good value for f/2.8 aperture, but Tamron's 17-50mm is a bit better lens overall. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: This "traveler's lens" has a wider focal range than most wide angle lenses (widest among Canon) and is equipped with an image stabilizer. While it is a Jack of many trades, it is the master of none. Every lenses on this list will perform better at particular focal length. Then again, none of the lenses on this list has as wide focal range. It is famous for extreme barrel distortion at 17mm and chroma aberrations. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF): This is the most direct competitor. It takes sharper images with faster aperture while costing less. Both the build and focus mechanism are significantly worse, but should be good enough for many. Works only with EF-S mount.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM: This is THE reference, if you can afford it. Its images have razor sharp details and great performance all around (minus vignetting, which is typical of EF-S lenses). The build quality is worse than L-series but still pretty good. Works only with EF-S mount. This is the best EF-S lens hands down.
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM: One of the most expensive wide angle zoom lenses. It's larger and heavier, but has f/2.8 aperture.

This is how Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 USM stacks up.

Pros:
- Among the very best build quality.
- Excellent, buttery smooth, super fast front-focus system.
- Top notch color and contrast. Very sharp center resolution.
- Almost non-existent vignetting, generally low distortion, and well controlled chroma abberrations.
- Ideal weight and size for walkaround purpose

Cons:
- Edge softness at f/4 aperture.
- Narrower focal length than most competing lenses.
- Slower than some third party lenses.

All in all, this is an excellent wide angle walkaround lens. It may not offer the most bang for the buck, but if you value full frame compatibility (EF lens mount) and excellent build quality, this is the default choice. This lens comes with a nice pouch and a lens hood. I find the hood to be somewhat ridiculously shaped and because the lens is resistant to flare, I do not use it often when shooting outdoor.

152 of 156 people found the following review helpful.
Versatility on the Cheap
By Genobambino
No one lens accomplishes every photographic objective. Canon makes each lens at every price point well-suited to various tasks, but with limitations that can only be overcome by graduating to the next higher priced but similar item. A case in point: the wide-angle zooms.

The 17-40mm f/4 is one of Canon's best deals in L-series glass. You have to spend twice as much to get a lens of similar quality, but just one stop faster. Does this make the more-expensive EF 16-35 f/2.8L a ripoff? Not for its own specific use: the extra stop gives you the speed to shoot in more indoor situations. Not all photographers need this. When indoors, we're often taking pictures of people, which are better suited to lengths around 50-100mm. To capture sweeping panoramas of parlors for Architectural Digest (or Coldwell Banker) the f/2.8 is the better lens and worth the step up in price, though in many cases you could use the f/4 lens with a tripod. All this means is that the f/2.8 is priced for professional specialists whereas the f/4 is for more general use. My bigger point is that Canon has its whole lineup positioned: the differences across lenses are specific and appropriately priced, which is good news for the consumer. It's hard to make a mistake buying homegrown Canon lenses, especially L-series lenses. You just have to figure out which set of two or three suits your range of uses.

The 17-40mm is a steal for people who need a walkaround lens for travel and outdoor photography. The shorter focal lengths of the zoom are great on a digital body, with nice reach and minimal distortion; just an ability to grab up landscape and wide situations end-to-end, even when standing close. The focal lengths around 40mm are tight enough for portraits and other local detail. Colors are strong and convincing; contrast deep and impactful. The lens itself is small enough and light enough to grab-and-go, but nicely machined, with solid fit and finish. It has an instantly recognizable profile, with the added bonus of the red ring.

This lens, plus a 70-200mm f/2.8 telescope and a nice fast fixed lens in the range betwixt are all you need. On vacation, and in most outdoor situations, the 17-40mm alone suffices. It makes a good first L-lens, and a staple in the arsenal.

493 of 530 people found the following review helpful.
Only decent in comparison to other L's
By Jesse R. Hunter
(I really want to give this lens 3.5 stars)

This review is written from the viewpoint of someone whom has used many L-class lenses, and as such will be a little harder on this piece of glass. If you've never used a Canon L lens and you purchase this one, I guarantee you'll be quite pleased with your purchase. But this review is really meant for those who own other L glass pieces and are looking into adding this one to their collection.

The good:

L glass tends to mean some heavy-weight glass, however this lens is surprisingly light and small. In fact, it is the smallest/lightest L zoom Canon makes. You find yourself more likely to take it to places where there may not be much of a projected photo opportunity or where there is a higher risk in damaged gear due to its unobtrusive size. It really is one of those few L lenses that you can casually walk around with and not garner much for attention.

As with all L-glass, this ones very solidly constructed. It has a simplicity of design that minimizes risk to moving parts from shock. It is well-balanced and just feels like a tight glass package.

The lens performs very well in color and contrast. Natural saturation is excellent, easily on par with the L expectation. The color and saturation of this lens sits somewhere between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I initially thought that the zoom range would be constraining (a mere 23mm of range?), but in reality the lens is fairly versatile. This especially true on a 1.6 FOVCF body (20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, etc), where the range is more like that of a normal zoom, at the cost of the super-wide advantage. The lens handles pretty much all composition tasks except those of a telephoto or 1.0x macro. You won't be disappointed in the zoom versatility.

Price. This like, what, the second cheapest L lens available. For those whom are very accustomed to purchasing/collecting L lenses, anything under a thousand dollars really is considered on the cheap side. If this is your first L purchase, this lens or the 70-200mm F/4L are your places to start.

Flare. There's practically none.

Cons: (there's only one, but its a biggie)

Sharpness. This is by far my biggest qualm, and what makes me frown a little at this lens for its L designation. It's nowhere near that of other lenses. One of the biggest uses for this lens is landscape photography, where objects appear very distant and sharpness becomes crucial. 24mm at f/4 on this lens is easily less sharp than 24mm at f/2.8 (!) on the 24-70 f/2.8L. And as a little investigation will reveal, this probelm is also somewhat appearant on the 16-35mm f/2.8L (although it seems less pronounced). 100% crop comparisons of this lens to other lenses such as the 180mm f/3.5L is simply a joke.

Other:

This lens utilizes slight movement of the front element, so it is advised by pretty much everyone that a UV filter be purchased (77mm filter size). I add to that by saying: buy only the Multi-coated from B+W or Hoya if you're shooting digital. Yes, they're usually somewhere around eighty bucks, but spending forty on something that will bring you ghosting/contrast woes is not worth it.

The hood of this lens is hilarious. It's almost five inches wide and maybe an inch and a half tall. I simply don't use it (I can't geometrically see how it helps. I think it may be something of a feel-good-hood if you're not consiencious about flare.) The lens is less conspicuous without it and I really don't have a flare problem.

Conclusion

I'm really not satisfied with the sharpness issue. It seems at least somewhat appearant on almost all Canon's lenses below 35mm. (Except for the 24-70 and 24-105, which is odd). I think they're still working out their wide-angle formula. Appearantly, the new 17-55mm f/2.8 is supposed to be sharper than both the 17-40 and 16-35, so they are probably on the right track of improving the issue.

In the end, if you've never used L glass and are considering this one, buy it. You will be very pleased, I assure you. But if you own a good deal of L glass, you may want to hold off from this one and wait for Canon to improve their optics. You may find yourself like me, using other L pieces and only using this one when I absolutely have to.

See all 318 customer reviews...More...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras..

Grab Now Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras By Canon

Most helpful customer reviews

640 of 671 people found the following review helpful.
Don't believe the reviews!
By Mark J. Sebastian
The reviews of the 50mm f/1.2L are useless. All you hear is "Spend your money on the 35L or 85L instead" or "the focusing issues make this lens unuseable". But something makes me think that people are just writing reviews based on what other people have said without actually ever using the product.

If you ever want to shoot snapshots of downtown without a flash at midnight WHILE walking, this is the lens to have. I'm so in love with this lens.

Pros:
* It's completely silent. Quieter than the f/1.4
* It has no problems focusing in the dark
* It's highly useable at f1.2
* It's sharper than the f/1.4
* Colors are more saturated than the f/1.4
* Images taken with this lens have higher contrast than the f/1.4
* It makes the f/1.4 feel like a hunk of plastic
* It comes with a hood

Cons:
* It costs 4 times more than the f/1.4
* It costs 18 times more than the f/1.8

Pros:
* You can comfortably shoot under conditions that would make the f/1.4 nervous.
* Produces a much higher yield of useable photos
* Aesthetically, it's the coolest looking lens I own!

For those who are concerned about the "back focusing" issue, I will let you know that I haven't experienced any backfocusing at all. I've let others shoot with it, wide open, within low-light environments and even the non-photographers were able to focus/shoot accurately.

This is my review from my non-scientific, real-world, situational testing.

183 of 193 people found the following review helpful.
Don't be scared. It is good lens.
By Dong W. Kim
I am not a professional photographer, or make living with taking pictures. I am just a person who loves to take pictures & enjoys good pictures. And, I know how expensive this lens is, and YES, I am very aware of "Back Focusing" issue with this lens that others worry. I have been using this lens for 3 weeks now, and have been experiencing good & bad about this lens. (I believe "back focusing" issue was way too much inflated.) I have EOS 5D, and wanted to take full advantage of FF factor, and this was why I took a plunge instead of getting acclaimed 35MM or 85MM.

Good:
Picture quality - from f1.2 thru f2.8, the lens works superbly. AF is fast & faster compared to 50mm 1.4. Above f2.8, the pictures become a touch soft, but it exceeded my expectation. In low light condition, this lens is virtually unbeatable.
Weight & Feel - Anoth factor that sold me to this lens is its overall feel. Very balanced & well weighted. And, its build quality is good.

Bad:
Back Focus - Yes, it does back focus in very (very) close distance. Within 20 inches, you may experience back focusing more than half of the time. (Others say within 30 inches or so, but I never experienced more than 20 inches far.) I asked myself how many times (in reality), I would try taking pictures within such distance.
Cost - Yes, this is expensive lens. 4 times more than very good 50mm 1.4.

I love to take portraits (especially for my new born baby) , and this was my main reason that I upgraded from 50mm 1.4 to 50mm 1.2. I would recommend this lens if you are into portraits. If you want more than what I am into, you may be disappointed. Did I make a good investment? Yes, I believe I did.

128 of 137 people found the following review helpful.
50mm f/1.2 on 5D Mark II
By Caring
You are probably reading these reviews to decide if you will pay $1,500+ to buy this lens or to get its sibling the 50 f/1.4. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for a year, and currently own the 50L 1.2. Ignore the reviews by those who have never even owned 50L 1.2 (or maybe rented it for a weekend) yet feel they can give you a solid opinion about it. I will give you a run-down of my experience with the 50L 1.2 as a portrait photographer:

*********************************
*** Crop vs Full-frame Camera ***
*********************************

This lens is all about narrow DoF. I will talk about the characteristics relating to DoF further in my review. To get the most out of this lens it is recommended that you use a FF camera to give you the most control over DOF. A full-frame camera will give you approx 1.6 times more blur than on an APS-C camera (such as the 7D).

50mm is very versatile on a FF camera, allowing small group photos, individual photos of bust-up / full length / three quarters. But not so much on the 7D, when you will have an equivalent field of vision of 80mm. 80mm is quite tight, and more suited for headshots and bust-up.

*
*
*

*************
*** Bokeh ***
*************

With narrow DoF comes great bokeh. The bokeh produced by the 8-bladed aperture is round and beautiful, currently matched only by the 85L 1.2. The 50 f/1.4 also has an 8-bladed aperture but the bokeh it produces pales in comparison and is often nervous and distracting. With the 50L 1.2, the bokeh has a soft and beautiful rendition - the subject is well isolated and everything out of focus becomes a wash of creaminess.

*
*
*

*****************
*** Sharpness ***
*****************

This is one of the areas where I feel the 50L 1.2 is most misunderstood. I will open my review of sharpness with this: between the apertures of f/1.2 to f/2.0, this lens is the sharpest of the Canon 50mm family. Period. If you don't like taking my word for it, then you can poke around in MTF charts. You must be skilled (yes, skill is needed, this is not a point and shoot lens) at using single focus points, have a steady camera technique, knowing where the blade of DoF falls, and knowing when to not focus and recompose.

The 50 f/1.4 then takes over in sharpness at around f/2.2 to f/2.8.

The 50L 1.2 will never be as sharp as my 85L 1.2 II. But for me as a portrait photographer, sharpness is relative. If the background is pure cream, then the lovely lady I am photographing will look sharp. Also, I don't mind not having the lens a little soft so the photograph does not capture every pore and imperfection on my subject's face. It actually saves me time when retouching later!

As a further note, I found that shooting wide open with the 50 f/1.4 gave results that lacked so much sharpness so as to be unusable.

*
*
*

************************
*** Color & Contrast ***
************************

The color rendition and contrast from the 50L 1.2 is beautiful, and what you would expect from an L lens. The optics and lens coatings are far superior to the 50 1.4 when it comes to color and contrast between f/1.2 and f/2.0.

When shooting wide open with the 50 1.4, I found out of focus areas with sunlight would exhibit color shifts to red and green. The contrast would also be very low - and at times so faded that the photograph could not be fixed (to my satisfaction) in post. With the 50 1.4 closed up to f/2.8, the color shifting was much more controlled and the contrast at an acceptable level.

*
*
*

*************************
*** 50L 1.2 vs 50 1.4 ***
*************************

The $1,500 grapefruit or the $355 non-L?

I would sum it up this way:

1. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. BUT, there will be many lighting conditions in which shooting between f/1.4 to f/2.0 will give you less than perfect results (eg. distracting bokeh, terrible color, washed out photos, or complete lack of sharpness). For a professional, it would be a challenge to practically use the non-L at f/1.4-f/2.0 in less than perfect situations. Shooting at f/2.8 and narrower, the non-L is as good as any Canon lens.

2. The grapefruit is advertised as an f/1.2 lens. AND, it is the wonder lens between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for the reasons given above. The color and contrast is L glass quality at all apertures. However, the sharpness is not as good as other Canon lenses from the more standard apertures of f/2.8 and narrower. The sharpness is also affected by the focus shift that occurs because the 50L 1.2 focuses wide open and the aperture is stopped down an instant before the sensor is exposed to take the photograph.

So where does this leave us? Because what I am going to say might insult some people, I am going to caveat that all of this is my own personal opinion - which is totally worthless anyway. Why have you read all the way down to here, hey? Here we go with a deep breath:

3. The $1,500 grapefruit is the lens for you if you love shooting between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for that bokehlicious cream and narrow DoF. It is a perfect versatile complement to the 85L 1.2, 135L 2.0, and the legendary 200L 2.0. I also consider the 35L 1.4 a fantastic prime, but not for portraiture as it has even less lens compression than a 50mm lens.

4. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. HOWEVER, in practice, in most conditions it will only give best results when used as an f/2.8 lens. With this limited 'usable aperture', this leads me to question what is the place of the non-L in my lens bag when there is the 24-70L 2.8. The L zoom is as sharp as most primes, and with the high resolution 24-70L 2.8 Mk II just around the corner, the Mk II will blast the 50 1.4 away in sharpness, color, contrast and versatility. For apertures wider than f/2.8, the grapefruit is firmly rooted in its position. Unless you cannot afford L glass (which you obviously can, otherwise you would not be reading this review), then you are sacrificing image quality for something else by putting the 50 1.4 in your lens bag.

*
*
*

See all 157 customer reviews...More...