very first impressions

paul simon king wrote:

Picked it up today and first thing I noticed is that the BW protector filter I got for it ( yes Im one of those , get over it) is helluva site harder to thread onto the lens. Not usre if its cos the front is plastic not metal - dunno - feels plasticky.

the whole lens feels nicely made but not as reassuringly solid as some, I think Il feel a little more timid about scratching this one than other Ive had (virtually all of the Canon lenses under 200m)
the 17-40 was an extrenmely good copy that I had (sold) and I'l be interested to see whether theres any diffience in the centre, but as far as the corners are concerned, from a few preliminary shots it's no contest, the new lens does what we wanted, has sharp corners.

while you haven't mentioned what camera you tested your lens on, i have gotten great result using my 17-40 f4 lens on my aps-c camera. i never bought this good copy/bad copy analogy bs. i have never had a bad copy of 16 "L" lenses right out of the box

the IS I suspect is one of those things I didnt particularily want but will probably turn out to be useful in the 30th 15th sec range- it might work well lower than that - I just got a HandHeld 2 second shot where I could read the text on a lone filter perfectly, and right in the very corner of the shot - but for any serious shooting I will still get the tripod out. 15th sec is often something I try to HH for fleeting shots though, and always not worth the trouble pressing the shutter for the amount of times is is not critically sharp so there it will be a boon.

It is better in those respects mentioned than the 17-40 but the 17-40 actually felt sturdier despite being lighter and I didnt have a problem changing filters - is that worth twice the cost? It's a lot to pay for sharp corners alone but that is pretty much what I hankered after and yes i dished out the dosh, but would I recommend others do the same?

Unless corners and IS really matter to you, then I'd say no, hang on to your cash, I don't think it's THAT much better than the 17-40, IF you get a good copy...I had four over time and only one competes with this new f4 WA lens ( two went straight back and I damaged one, the last was the best)

please view this album and point out to me which corner is corner is not clear in any of those photos. all of the shots were handheld, tripod never used!

http://azbaha.zenfolio.com/p572883877

So far I rate this the same stars as the 17-40 because while it is better in some respects it is not in others (IMO)

I'll take some proper shots later in the week- so far Im a bit concerned about the build quality and it's just odd that the filter takes so much fiddling to get on, can't imagine how I'd change to the polariser with coldhands - but at least I know the edges are there now and that has to be worth it alone, well for me anyway, that sort of thing always bothered me

i'll stick to my 17-40 f4.0 for a long time to come i don't see any reason to upgrade to the new lens you have tested

cheerz.