Very good. It probably wont be considered as a walkabout lens due to the limit of 40mm. But if you want quality through the range then its a great choice.

There is a 17 - 35 aswel I think ? :S (please confirm)

 

I Doubt if you'll beat it, mine is on my camera all the time. If your in the position to buy one don't hesitate you won't be disappointed.

 

16-35mm f/2.8. Unfortunately it's almost double the price.

 

Thats what you get when you combine L & f2.8

 

Worth trying out a Sigma 18-50 2.8. I couldnt tell the difference in picture quality and it is £200 cheaper.

 

It's a cracking lens [wish i had it]

good reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

 

yes i have one and its a very nice lens. good and specific at the wider ranges and i think an excellent investment

 

There is also a 17-35 2.8. It was replaced with the 16-35.

 

Fan-ruddy-tastic

 

No other lens available for around £500 or less offers what the 17-40L F4 does.

Very Sharp from F4
Excellent colour and Contrast
Fast USM Focus
Tank build quality
Weather sealed
Full time manual focus

 

It's not worth double the price though, is it?

Providing you have a filter on the front.

 

I dont find I require that depth of field from that focal range.. Only on a macro & telephoto do I need that. I wouldnt say its not worth it.. Its just I doubt you'l find anyone tell you a bad thing regarding the 17-40. Its on my camera more than any other.

 

if your working with a 1.6 coversion its an essential HQ wide lens