Not exactly an L class lens in my book, but still a good performer.

Most digital photographers have a dirty little secret. While we take stunning quality photos at up to 6 megapixels or better with our big digital SLR's, we're severely crippled in the wide angle photography department. Most digital SLR cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm frame, and therefore have a magnification factor of up to 1.6x at any focal length. In other words, a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm lens. This is great for nature photographers who need to really zoom into the action, but it's a serious deterrent to landscape photographers. Ansel Adams would likely pitch these digitals into the nearest trash can if he were alive today.

Luckily, not everyone is a landscape photographer, and only need limited wide angle reach.

A native 28mm is a popular and fairly wide focal length suitable for a good deal of landscape photography. We digital shooters don't have the luxury of a 28mm focal length in the same respect as film shooters, so we're stuck compensating for this with expensive extra-wide lenses. This is an example of one of these lenses. With a multiplication factor of 1.6x (Canon D30 and D60), a 17mm focal length becomes a 27.2mm lens. This gives us the ability to have SOME wide angle ability.

I recently picked up this lens after seeing that it was replaced by the 16-35mm f/2.8L. Having gotten it at a great price (under $1000), I thought I would finally get some acceptable wide angle shots out of it. Of course, I wasn't COMPLETELY wrong. I can certainly get some USABLE shots out of this lens, but after doing some investigation I discovered that wide angle lenses are a tough nut to crack.

The 17-35L is obviously BUILT like a Canon L-class lens. It has internal focusing and zooming (the lens doesn't telescope in or out), and the external lens element never rotates for those of you who use filters. The external lens element is a 77mm size, like a lot of other L-class lenses (such as my 28-70 and 70-200 zooms). It includes a lens hood (nice) and a cruddy little pouch that you'll never use.

Lens performance is a mixed bag.

One problem with Wide Angle lenses is that they tend to suffer from barrel distortion (also referred to as vignetting). This shows as straight lines being curved inward towards the center of the photograph, and is most noticed in architecture shots. This has to be corrected with additional internal lens elements (glass). This lens suffers from very mild barrel distortion at its widest end, but won't be obvious to the casual observer.

Chromatic aberration is very minimal with this lens, even when wide open at f/2.8. This was a pleasant surprise, as most of the cheaper Sigma PRIMES suffered from this. For those of you not well versed in the term Chromatic Aberration (CA), it's basically color fringing from when light on the red, green or blue end of the spectrum doesn't align properly in your shot. A lot of consumer digital cameras suffer from this phenomenon thanks to their cheaper optics.

The color and contrast of this lens is typical of Canon L's. Bright and contrasty with that famous L "Pop". If you're familiar with other Canon L lenses, then you're likely familiar of its color characteristics. Simply the best.

Sharpness varies quite a bit. When wide open at f/2.8 and at its widest end focally, this lens is soft. There's no doubt about it, fine details even on the most haze-free days get soupy. When the lens is at around 24mm and stopped down to f/8, the lens performs MUCH more admirably. Again, how much this will affect you depends on whether you're shooting digitally with a magnification factor or not. For sweeping landscapes, I really wish this lens would perform better at its widest end... But I guess that's one of the prices you pay with going digital.

Another problem with wide angle photography in general is haze. Atmospheric haze is notorious for killing detail, particularly in shots where your subject is far off in the distance (mountain ranges for example). The 17-35 does the best it can here, but this is a limitation that hits just about all wide angle lenses.

So what's the bottom line? Well, i've seen shots from this lens' successor, the 16-35mm f/2.8L. There's been a lot of buzz about it on the dpreview.com Canon SLR forum regarding its softness, so I can honestly say that the wide angle nut hasn't quite been cracked yet for 35mm shooters (and ESPECIALLY SLR digital shooters). The Canon 14mm f/2.8L prime lens also suffers from softness from the samples i've reviewed, and that lens is nearly $2000. But since the 17-35mm has been replaced, its price is under the $1000 mark, making it a pretty good bargain for those of you who want great color and contrast, build quality and a constant aperture through its entire focal range. A perfect lens this is not, but with the amount of work required to design a good wide lens, you simply should expect perfection.

I'll rate this lens "above average", because quite frankly all other cheaper wide angle options from Sigma and Tamron are dogs. I have friends that own these super-wide Tamron and Sigma offerings, and they simply don't compare to the 17-35L in contrast, color OR sharpness. While you should NOT expect the sharpness of a 28-70 or 70-200L's, you will get plenty of usable shots with this lens.