@saintphen No IS isn't that much of a problem coz if you're shooting wide, then it's not prone to shakey hands so much.... you've got the whole formula 1/focal length for hand held shooting stabilty thingi...
@mwjk13 If you'd look closely and search for it, they took some of the DRTV's videos and translated them from english to russian. you fucking idiot. Open up your eyes and search before you talk. DIPfuckingSHIT
@Dragon4eva Simmer, all I said was that I see vignetting on the camera. I know it's a canon. Generally, when you use a lens that is meant for an APSC camera on a full frame camera, you tend to get a little vignetting.
@510FILMS On full frame it's a wide angle but on a crop sensor it's a general walk around with a range of 27-64mm. Kind of like a the crop version of the 24-70, just f4. But the ultra wide-ness only works with full frame, but then you also don't get the soft corners like he said.
So is this worth if you want a wide angle for the T2i? Do the L lens really make a huge difference when it comes to sharpness compared to their non L lens?
@Anhslaught Yeah i find it to be 100% better than the kit lens. It's sooooo much sharper and the colours are just so vivid. I find it still to be really wide on the t2i but you can still get in in fairly close. A great walk around for me. Plus its quiet, metal, weather sealed etc.
@Anhslaught If you really want to go wide on an APS-C sensor camera though, you're probably better off with the EF-S 10-22. Many say that the quality's comparable to that of an L lens (sans weather sealing). Of course, this is assuming that you don't have any plans of upgrading to a full-frame camera in the near future.
@97purna. i just got a 70-200 for my 7d and find it supremely useful. But i shoot a LOT of outdoor sports. The 17-40 could be a great walkaround, but the f4 might not be fast enough for indoor without a flash. For that, I'd get a wide angle prime from Sigma or Canon at f1.8
good review. love the stills at the end of the video. i agree. it's a great lens. it generally never comes off my camera when i'm shooting architecture. with a full frame camera, it's the only one you need for architecture or landscapes. unfortunately, canon doesn't really make one much wider for a full frame until you get to the 8-15mm, but it does the job.
My friend told me that this lens is too soft at f4, I am thinking to get this one for my 5d cuz I already have a 50 1.4 which can cover short of 17-40. If I got a 24-70, my 50 is gonna be somehow useless.
@TheShanahg The 50 f1.4 will always be great for low light and smooth bokeh. The 24-70 won't replace, especially when it's so heavy and you don't want to carry around all the time. At the same time, I think it makes more sense to get the 17-40 for the UWA and the 50mm for lowlight. It depends whether you need the 24-70 or not
@K3BANG lol except for the fact that the Canon 17-40 is FULL FRAME and produces amazingly cool ultra-wide angle photos on full frame cameras... which is what the lens is really designed for. It's also weather sealed and has accurate/consistent AF... unlike any Sigma lens. Oh and it has something a Sigma will never have... the fact that it's a L lens ...signifying that you're a legit photographer with enough photography business income to not have to skimp on quality with cheaper lenses ;)
Nice if you have all L-lenses of Canon but can't compose a proper picture. The Signature of a photographer is neither camera nor lens, it's how you use light and composition in your photo. For example, Edward Curtis started with a selfbuilt camera. The fact that you're a legit photographer only if you have Canon's L-Lenses is making me laugh. A good photographer can shoot a better photo with the Sigma than a bad one with a L lens.
-I never said a bad photographer would take better photos with L lenses than a good photographer with a cheaper brand. Duh, a better photographer would take a better photo. But with two equally talented photographers, the one using L-lenses verses a cheaper brand will most likely end up with better shots than a cheaper brand,
-I put emphasis on Canon being pro level because of the fact that this debate was between Sigma and Canon. Canon wins.
-Yes, obviously those significantly more expensive and studio sophisticated medium format cameras would produce better quality every time than Canon IN STUDIO SETTINGS. But you can't take a Hasselblad out and shoot a wedding or shoot an assignment for a newspaper. A pro grade Canon (or Nikon) can shoot professional quality studio shots AND great wedding shots AND great sports/journalistic shots (ever see a Hasselblad shooter on the sidelines at an NFL game? Nope.) Apples/oranges.
@MacBoyFilmmaker PS: If you are talking about quality, every LEGIT photographer will laugh at you. Ever heard of Hasselblad, Sinar, Linhof? Sure, these cameras are built for studio photography and you can't really use them for sports, press etc.. but in overall quality you can go die in a corner with Canon. But i can only say it again: It doesn't matter what camera you've got, it only matters how you use light. Light is everything in photography! And yes I'm buying this lens xD
@Jazz0Vs0Metal Your comments are irrelevant. This debate was between a CANON 17-40mm f4L lens and a SIGMA 17-50mm f2.8 lens. Hands down, every time, the Canon version would perform better, grab accurate focus, and produce sharper images than the Sigma counterpart... and oh yeah, it can be put on a full frame camera and the Sigma has to remain with crop sensor cameras. So to stray from that topic is irrelevant.
@Jazz0Vs0Metal no offense but i always see pro photographer with heavy and expensive gears never saw a single pro photographer with d3100 and 18-55 lens.
@jailbird111 Are you a moron? I said that pro photographers would make better photos with bad equipment than amateur photographers with good equipment. Please read the things that I write.
@Jazz0Vs0Metal listen pea-brain. no pro photographer use cheap gears and never will. without good iso range, big aperture or flash how they can take pro quality photos in low light. same goes for telephoto lenses. if pro can take a usable photos by cheap equipment they would never buy these heavy equipment and pay big insurance money on it. these things like 'a pro can take good quality photos by cheap cam' is marketing technique to sell out consumer products to brainless people like you
@jailbird111 As it seems you can't read and understand what my point is. I did never say that I'd prefer cheap equipment over expensive equipment. I don't have the money to afford EVERY L-lens because I'm still learning photography on an photography school, I try to do the best with my equipment and I can take nice pictures without having the best equipment.
WtF? Marketing technique says the man who bought a Sigma lens, haha I can't stop laughing.
@Jazz0Vs0Metal I bought sigma lens bcz i tested it rigorously and i found its result quite pleasing also i bought it second hand at price of 70-200mm @ 400$ and 150mm macro @ 300$. I check reviews of equipment to see their pros but not cons. cons i check by my self. and the biggest con every one is writing for sigma is its CA (chromatic aberration) and i only find a little in extreme near 200 and its easily corrected by LightRoom 3 in 1 min. nikon lens are the best for nikon body no doubt.
Learn to construct a half legible sentence before hurling insults at others. You're just making yourself look like a prick.
I makes me laugh whenever i see some imbecile arguing with someone smarter than himself. Making themselves look like complete idiots without even realising it.
@flightsimrocks the topic of debate is not my poor english so quit fooling around with unrelated issues. if you don't have a reasonable and logical justification for your argument then better not to reply and stay silent or for your better understanding STFU.
@RhemStar 17-40mm L. But I would rather consider getting the 17-55 first (more range) and than safing for a 16-35L if you need a good wideangle zoom lens. It's got a larger aperture than this of f 2.8
@RhemStar well the 17-55 IS usm f2.8, i presume, is designed for cropped sensor camera... so it will work perfectly fine... this one on the other hand was designed for full frame bodies so... the lens hood that comes with it will not work with your 600D... i got this lens mounted on my 550D... i had to take off the hood and put on a UV filter to protect the lens which i don't like doing... i normally use the hood for protection.
@Tchoky You're missing a lot of things. Firstly, you've probably got an APS-C camera, well the 18-55mm won't work on full frame cameras like the one in this video. Secondly this has a fixed aperture throughout the zoom range. Thirdly, this is a lot sharper. Finally, this is an L lens, with USM, so it will focus faster, and is made to a lot higher quality. Same lens, pah.
sorry, but i dont get it: Why is this lense better, than the cheap kit lense (3,5-5,5 18-55mm)? With th kit lense you have wider aperture, wider focal range.... its just missing an L^^
@Tchoky Well - it still has the f/4 at 40mm, it's sharper, has the fast and quiet USM motor, it'sweather sealed and it can be used on a full frame or analog camera so you get the full 17mm without any crop. I guess that's the point. Well, yes: And you get a lens hood with it.
Kai please review the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS Vs Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS Vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc compared to Canon 17-40 F4 L .....BATTLE of the 17-50 + 17-40
@gilegraam I never understood complaints about soft corners on UWA shots, nobody looks at the corners except for lens nerds, but they contribute nothing to the composition of the photo.
@Kai : where is it ? This lace is so beautiful for photography :) Can you tell me the location since I also live in Hong Kong :) Thank for the great video man :)
Can you also make a video review of new Nikkor 50mm lens :)
@Kai : where is it ? This lace is so beautiful for photography :) Can you tell me the location since I also live in Hong Kong :) Thank for the great video man :)
Kai. Could you guys make a video as too. How and would lens would you uses if you were going to an Amusement park ( Disney) and how to take a good picture with all those people around ? How a can stand out and not look sooo tourist like
@KevinLam2491 Well, 10-22 is wider on APS-C, but its only EF-S, so only on APS-C body. It has sh*tload of chromatic aberation (CA), its not particulary sharp, distorted. Rather buy Sigma 10-20, its better if you can get good piece (Sigma has bit poorer quality control).
LOL I just realized [even though this is a Canon review], the only reason I like digital rev reviews is because they say "Nee-kon", not "nai-kon". I heard an american say that british and americans say it differently. WELL, dear americans, if it was meant to say "ny-kon", the company name would be Naikon instead of Nikon! Lol take Japanese classes?
why dose the video look over exposed and whashed out?
jayandersons 1 week ago
Comment removed
susuraj1996 2 weeks ago
@susuraj1996 Its definitely Hong Kong...
miniteichman 1 week ago
The only thing i'm worry about this lens is the f4 aperture :/
Oxyfresch 1 month ago
Anyone knows if the lack of built-in IS would be an issue at all?
saintphen 1 month ago
@saintphen No IS isn't that much of a problem coz if you're shooting wide, then it's not prone to shakey hands so much.... you've got the whole formula 1/focal length for hand held shooting stabilty thingi...
cafepk 1 month ago
@cafepk Yea I agree. Still shots would be non-issue. I was just wondering if it would be problematic when it comes to handheld video shooting.
saintphen 1 month ago
Appears evry low contrast & I love the Qui Chan Cain Music on the intro -
bberns2 1 month ago
those it work on crop sensor dslr too? since kai mentioned its a full frame lens
gasconade10 1 month ago
@gasconade10 it WORKS on a crop.. but obviously you get that crop :)
BrandonKingVloggin 1 month ago
I wish you would review the Canon EF 14mm f2.8L II
TheOats 1 month ago
giant wooden turd. this was the best bit!
isezhello 1 month ago
Sometimes you think you are close enough, and then you're not.
FYYYRE 1 month ago
2:57 "woh we can't ge-in!" = Ricky Gervais.
animaysh 1 month ago
Comment removed
animaysh 1 month ago
Do A Review on the canon 16-35mm L!!!!
REPORBONES 1 month ago
do not see much of the angle getting wide, even on the mark2
ONLY1QIAN 1 month ago
Hey DRTV..i think this channel kinda stole your videos..and translated them to some language..not sure if they have the copyright to use your videos.
/user/fotosua/videos
Guys please thumbs so the team will know. PLEASE
Shibamobobo 2 months ago 66
@Shibamobobo They haven't stolen any video's and it's russian idiot
mwjk13 1 month ago
@mwjk13 If you'd look closely and search for it, they took some of the DRTV's videos and translated them from english to russian. you fucking idiot. Open up your eyes and search before you talk. DIPfuckingSHIT
Shibamobobo 1 month ago
@Shibamobobo well no, its a different russian channel for electrical appliances.
Mzahaka1313 2 weeks ago
4:43 reminds me of man vs wild when he's stalking his prey lol.
KungFuMastur 2 months ago
Nice!!!!
Can I request a video about WIDE vs ULTRA WIDE vs FISHEYE?
to help us differentiate them all.
sagedao08 2 months ago 98
isn't the 70-200 f4 l cheaper?
TheLittleWorldofGaz 2 months ago
@TheLittleWorldofGaz both lens about the same price
ncs2000 2 months ago
I love the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens on my 7D nice and fast and bright
devonmale69 2 months ago
@devonmale69
Do you get a pretty good wide angle with it? Or is it still too far for you?
Anhslaught 1 month ago
This is my favourite drtv video, I don't know why, I just love it.
mattaylor8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhotoFrankie 5D MK II with the 24-105 f/4L IS...Kai has the 17-40 attatched it to at the start of the filming...
FightForAudio 2 months ago
BOKEHHHHHHHH
almotor18 2 months ago
I see a bit of vignetting on the camera you used to film it. Is it a DX lens on a FX camera or something? Great video by the way! :D
PhotoFrankie 3 months ago
@PhotoFrankie No its a Canon lens
devonmale69 2 months ago
@PhotoFrankie you're talking about a Canon lens... an L lens, no less... what are you even on about
Dragon4eva 2 months ago
@Dragon4eva Simmer, all I said was that I see vignetting on the camera. I know it's a canon. Generally, when you use a lens that is meant for an APSC camera on a full frame camera, you tend to get a little vignetting.
PhotoFrankie 2 months ago
review on the tokina 11-16mm PLEASE?!
prestigousstyle 3 months ago 7
squat like a Mainlander! hahahah
nicuyliapco 3 months ago
Would there even be a point using this lens on a canon with an APSC censor? Does the wide angle effect really only work with a full frame?
510FILMS 3 months ago
@510FILMS On full frame it's a wide angle but on a crop sensor it's a general walk around with a range of 27-64mm. Kind of like a the crop version of the 24-70, just f4. But the ultra wide-ness only works with full frame, but then you also don't get the soft corners like he said.
M1sterHamilton 3 months ago
@M1sterHamilton
So is this worth if you want a wide angle for the T2i? Do the L lens really make a huge difference when it comes to sharpness compared to their non L lens?
Anhslaught 1 month ago
@Anhslaught Yeah i find it to be 100% better than the kit lens. It's sooooo much sharper and the colours are just so vivid. I find it still to be really wide on the t2i but you can still get in in fairly close. A great walk around for me. Plus its quiet, metal, weather sealed etc.
M1sterHamilton 1 month ago
@Anhslaught If you really want to go wide on an APS-C sensor camera though, you're probably better off with the EF-S 10-22. Many say that the quality's comparable to that of an L lens (sans weather sealing). Of course, this is assuming that you don't have any plans of upgrading to a full-frame camera in the near future.
IndigoEyePhotography 1 month ago
@Anhslaught 17mm on your T2i would be eqv. 27mm, so not really that wide. I believe this lens was designed with Full-Frame sensors in mind.
AdamBoon 3 weeks ago
@97purna. i just got a 70-200 for my 7d and find it supremely useful. But i shoot a LOT of outdoor sports. The 17-40 could be a great walkaround, but the f4 might not be fast enough for indoor without a flash. For that, I'd get a wide angle prime from Sigma or Canon at f1.8
TheWoodlink 3 months ago
is this lens good for a 600d? or will I only maximize its potential when used on a full frame dslr?
agperante 3 months ago
the 17-40 f4L or the 70-200 f4L for a first lens?! By the way i'm gonna buy the 550d body with it!
97purna 3 months ago
sucks that its f4 but, nice price and I already own an 24-70 F2.8L so this goes in the will buy list!
FlyingRubberGuard 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
never put your lens in the proximity of a weed wacker! they kick up rocks you know!
timberswiss3 4 months ago
anybody know what lens the guy filming the reviewer was using?
LivetobeEPIC 4 months ago
@LivetobeEPIC 1:38 > "EF 24-105L f/4 IS" I think
Eremita85 4 months ago
@LivetobeEPIC Lok like's using the 24-105 I'm pretty sure
M1sterHamilton 3 months ago
good review. love the stills at the end of the video. i agree. it's a great lens. it generally never comes off my camera when i'm shooting architecture. with a full frame camera, it's the only one you need for architecture or landscapes. unfortunately, canon doesn't really make one much wider for a full frame until you get to the 8-15mm, but it does the job.
ShuPortraits 4 months ago
Born presenter XD
SyndicateFilmStudios 4 months ago
Does the KENKO 77mm pro1 digital UV filter is good on 17-40mm to complete it's weather sealing?? somebody have an opinion. thank you in advance
66biboy 4 months ago
Can somebody give me a suggestion? Thanks :)
TheShanahg 4 months ago
My friend told me that this lens is too soft at f4, I am thinking to get this one for my 5d cuz I already have a 50 1.4 which can cover short of 17-40. If I got a 24-70, my 50 is gonna be somehow useless.
TheShanahg 4 months ago
@TheShanahg The 50 f1.4 will always be great for low light and smooth bokeh. The 24-70 won't replace, especially when it's so heavy and you don't want to carry around all the time. At the same time, I think it makes more sense to get the 17-40 for the UWA and the 50mm for lowlight. It depends whether you need the 24-70 or not
tromba25 4 months ago
lambeee marry meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
jailbird111 5 months ago
3:43 the guy was resting the wheel on his ....
lhlee888 5 months ago
8:14 is awesome!!!!!!!!!
FXMachinima 5 months ago
Canon 17-40mm f/4 vs Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 PLEASE!!!
MachinistakaxERo 6 months ago
So you saying they dont squat in HK???? Been there, done that. Dont make fun of the mainlanders you idiot.
TheBritinchina 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would this lens fit with the 7D ?
NeverApproved 6 months ago
Comment removed
NeverApproved 6 months ago
i was really set on this lens
the i discovered the sigma 17-50 f2.8
so many good and better reviews on that lens
K3BANG 6 months ago
@K3BANG lol except for the fact that the Canon 17-40 is FULL FRAME and produces amazingly cool ultra-wide angle photos on full frame cameras... which is what the lens is really designed for. It's also weather sealed and has accurate/consistent AF... unlike any Sigma lens. Oh and it has something a Sigma will never have... the fact that it's a L lens ...signifying that you're a legit photographer with enough photography business income to not have to skimp on quality with cheaper lenses ;)
MacBoyFilmmaker 6 months ago
@MacBoyFilmmaker
Nice if you have all L-lenses of Canon but can't compose a proper picture. The Signature of a photographer is neither camera nor lens, it's how you use light and composition in your photo. For example, Edward Curtis started with a selfbuilt camera. The fact that you're a legit photographer only if you have Canon's L-Lenses is making me laugh. A good photographer can shoot a better photo with the Sigma than a bad one with a L lens.
Jazz0Vs0Metal 5 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal And in regards to your other remarks:
-I never said a bad photographer would take better photos with L lenses than a good photographer with a cheaper brand. Duh, a better photographer would take a better photo. But with two equally talented photographers, the one using L-lenses verses a cheaper brand will most likely end up with better shots than a cheaper brand,
-I put emphasis on Canon being pro level because of the fact that this debate was between Sigma and Canon. Canon wins.
MacBoyFilmmaker 5 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal
-Yes, obviously those significantly more expensive and studio sophisticated medium format cameras would produce better quality every time than Canon IN STUDIO SETTINGS. But you can't take a Hasselblad out and shoot a wedding or shoot an assignment for a newspaper. A pro grade Canon (or Nikon) can shoot professional quality studio shots AND great wedding shots AND great sports/journalistic shots (ever see a Hasselblad shooter on the sidelines at an NFL game? Nope.) Apples/oranges.
MacBoyFilmmaker 5 months ago
@MacBoyFilmmaker PS: If you are talking about quality, every LEGIT photographer will laugh at you. Ever heard of Hasselblad, Sinar, Linhof? Sure, these cameras are built for studio photography and you can't really use them for sports, press etc.. but in overall quality you can go die in a corner with Canon. But i can only say it again: It doesn't matter what camera you've got, it only matters how you use light. Light is everything in photography! And yes I'm buying this lens xD
Jazz0Vs0Metal 5 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal Your comments are irrelevant. This debate was between a CANON 17-40mm f4L lens and a SIGMA 17-50mm f2.8 lens. Hands down, every time, the Canon version would perform better, grab accurate focus, and produce sharper images than the Sigma counterpart... and oh yeah, it can be put on a full frame camera and the Sigma has to remain with crop sensor cameras. So to stray from that topic is irrelevant.
MacBoyFilmmaker 5 months ago
@MacBoyFilmmaker as sheldon cooper said. if they could they would but they cant they shan't. grow up and buy nice gears.
jailbird111 4 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal no offense but i always see pro photographer with heavy and expensive gears never saw a single pro photographer with d3100 and 18-55 lens.
jailbird111 4 months ago
@jailbird111 Are you a moron? I said that pro photographers would make better photos with bad equipment than amateur photographers with good equipment. Please read the things that I write.
Jazz0Vs0Metal 4 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal listen pea-brain. no pro photographer use cheap gears and never will. without good iso range, big aperture or flash how they can take pro quality photos in low light. same goes for telephoto lenses. if pro can take a usable photos by cheap equipment they would never buy these heavy equipment and pay big insurance money on it. these things like 'a pro can take good quality photos by cheap cam' is marketing technique to sell out consumer products to brainless people like you
jailbird111 4 months ago
@jailbird111 As it seems you can't read and understand what my point is. I did never say that I'd prefer cheap equipment over expensive equipment. I don't have the money to afford EVERY L-lens because I'm still learning photography on an photography school, I try to do the best with my equipment and I can take nice pictures without having the best equipment.
WtF? Marketing technique says the man who bought a Sigma lens, haha I can't stop laughing.
Jazz0Vs0Metal 4 months ago
@Jazz0Vs0Metal I bought sigma lens bcz i tested it rigorously and i found its result quite pleasing also i bought it second hand at price of 70-200mm @ 400$ and 150mm macro @ 300$. I check reviews of equipment to see their pros but not cons. cons i check by my self. and the biggest con every one is writing for sigma is its CA (chromatic aberration) and i only find a little in extreme near 200 and its easily corrected by LightRoom 3 in 1 min. nikon lens are the best for nikon body no doubt.
jailbird111 4 months ago
@jailbird111
Learn to construct a half legible sentence before hurling insults at others. You're just making yourself look like a prick.
I makes me laugh whenever i see some imbecile arguing with someone smarter than himself. Making themselves look like complete idiots without even realising it.
flightsimrocks 4 months ago
@flightsimrocks the topic of debate is not my poor english so quit fooling around with unrelated issues. if you don't have a reasonable and logical justification for your argument then better not to reply and stay silent or for your better understanding STFU.
jailbird111 4 months ago
@jailbird111
my point exactly. -.-
flightsimrocks 4 months ago
Which is much better for a 600D Body, this 17-40mm L or 17-55mm ?
RhemStar 7 months ago
@RhemStar 17-40mm L. But I would rather consider getting the 17-55 first (more range) and than safing for a 16-35L if you need a good wideangle zoom lens. It's got a larger aperture than this of f 2.8
OrsonMyles 7 months ago
@RhemStar well the 17-55 IS usm f2.8, i presume, is designed for cropped sensor camera... so it will work perfectly fine... this one on the other hand was designed for full frame bodies so... the lens hood that comes with it will not work with your 600D... i got this lens mounted on my 550D... i had to take off the hood and put on a UV filter to protect the lens which i don't like doing... i normally use the hood for protection.
truknayr23 6 months ago
what place is that in hk that hand over to china , round building?
diehardmetal 7 months ago
quite like DA12-24/4 on pentax.. but that is stabilised and has less problems with flares :)
xmeda 7 months ago
@Tchoky You're missing a lot of things. Firstly, you've probably got an APS-C camera, well the 18-55mm won't work on full frame cameras like the one in this video. Secondly this has a fixed aperture throughout the zoom range. Thirdly, this is a lot sharper. Finally, this is an L lens, with USM, so it will focus faster, and is made to a lot higher quality. Same lens, pah.
mattaylor8 7 months ago
sorry, but i dont get it: Why is this lense better, than the cheap kit lense (3,5-5,5 18-55mm)? With th kit lense you have wider aperture, wider focal range.... its just missing an L^^
Or am I missing something?
Tchoky 8 months ago
@Tchoky Well - it still has the f/4 at 40mm, it's sharper, has the fast and quiet USM motor, it'sweather sealed and it can be used on a full frame or analog camera so you get the full 17mm without any crop. I guess that's the point. Well, yes: And you get a lens hood with it.
JikoMuskato 7 months ago
this is one "L" of a good deal *ZINGER*
joeiacotaco 8 months ago
I like your T-Shirt @Kai
wevavoor 8 months ago
this should be canons kit lens
juss001 8 months ago
LoL. He said one L of a good deal.
neacloud 8 months ago
only f4
jh3835 8 months ago
Can you review the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens?
emailzforlife 9 months ago
u guys gotta review the canon 24 mm f 1.4 L
haritejaps 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
according to canon hk, both EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM and EF 70-200mm f/4L USM cost 6,780HKD, which means BOTH of them are the cheapest L lens available.
TheOldnews 9 months ago
one L of a good deal :D
mleehm 9 months ago 11
Hey where'd you get that camera shirt!!!
TomCampOH 9 months ago
Can you review the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens?
DaAntiderivative 9 months ago 38
Your reviews are great, you're funny, and I enjoy your videos!
Charito29NP 9 months ago
I would LOVE a review of the Canon 16-35mm 2,8 ll Usm L lens :)!!
SebastianSimonsenHD 9 months ago 27
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 OS hsm VS Canon 17-40mm F4 L please Kai and Lok and Alamby hehehe
BryanMumble 9 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Kai please review the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS Vs Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS Vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc compared to Canon 17-40 F4 L .....BATTLE of the 17-50 + 17-40
BryanMumble 9 months ago
Do more videos on wide angle lens! and UWA!
PewpewFighter 9 months ago
Is the 16-35mm f/2.8L II somewhere on your to-do list? :)
realyzaznz 9 months ago 2
Review the Canon 16-35 f2.8 lens!
b1006068 9 months ago 2
I want the camera that hanging on your neck Kay!
gunawantuna 9 months ago
WAITH !
is the front element really moving ????
wtf is that
ThatGuyWearsZebraz 9 months ago
Kai please review the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS Vs Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS Vs Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc compared to Canon 17-40 F4 L
BryanMumble 9 months ago 4
@BryanMumble don't forget the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 as well.
teeemoy 9 months ago
Crap,Rubbish, Shit oh thats even worst :)))))
Technohub7D 9 months ago
can you make the video between 17-40f4 vd 17-50 f2.8
prempcc 9 months ago
Nice tshirt!
wilbathke 9 months ago
what is 'IS'?
Khai2799 9 months ago
@Khai2799 Image Stabilization
hongfei95 9 months ago
Whoow..at last..my request :D thankyou Kwai :D
aronhusink 9 months ago
Whoow..at last..my request :D thankyou Kwai :D
aronhusink 9 months ago
Show me the BOOOKEEEH LOL
conscarcdr 9 months ago
t shirt <3
HipekPhotography 9 months ago
waaa,,,my lens,,,i m user this lens,,,superb. I m spend 2k to buy this lens in my country, tht vry xpnsive,,,but it great for my camera.
alizoQMN 9 months ago
Finally, Loc is back!
gotrek13 9 months ago
Can you PLEASE do a video comparison between Canon 17-40mm F/4 vs Canon 16-35mm F/2.8 ?
AnhRichie 9 months ago
@AnhRichie Ive been asking for a month. Post this question on their Facebook page and they might respond.
goldenboi24k 9 months ago
keep these premium lens reviews coming Kai!
geonlansis 9 months ago
Nice review...
VVernigor 9 months ago
can you do a review of canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM?
RCGarcia2011 9 months ago
can you do a review of canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM?
RCGarcia2011 9 months ago
I wonder if sales of the 17-40 have dropped off ?
Great lens but getting old Come on Canon we need a 17-40 with IS !!
mikeismad61 9 months ago
@mikeismad61 no we dont. Doing that will add another $500 to the lens. Just buy a monopod or Glidecam
goldenboi24k 9 months ago
I used this lens in New Zealand on my 5DMKII and it captured some good shots. One of my favorite lens.
IansVacations 9 months ago
Could you do a review of Canon 135L F2? Please! Thank you!
shumsky86 9 months ago 3
@shumsky86 i agree
MrEllis100 9 months ago 3
@shumsky86 That is canon sharpest lens
goldenboi24k 9 months ago
0:38 loc starts his creepy laughing.
TheSkepticc 9 months ago
The only good thing about this lens is that it's relatively cheap.
Nikon 14-24, Olympus 7-14, Tokina 16-28 blow it away.
hellari 9 months ago
can you do a comparison of it to the 10-22mm canon EF-S?
rammedstein 9 months ago
Come on Kai, ofcourse there'll be distortions at 17mm - and that's actually great, otherwise it would not be a WIDE ANGLE LENS!
You stinking Nikon fanboy.
MadmanDKDK 9 months ago
isn't the cheapest L lens the 70-200 f4L?
dlu361 9 months ago 62
@dlu361 NOT IN PRODUCTION. HE SAID THE CHEAPEST IN PRODUCTION
goldenboi24k 9 months ago
@goldenboi24k
70-200 f4 L non IS is in production, the hell you talking about ?
MadmanDKDK 9 months ago
@goldenboi24k when did canon stop producing it?
dlu361 9 months ago
@dlu361
Actually it is - at least where I get my lenses.
MadmanDKDK 9 months ago
@dlu361 he said light
JakeG895 9 months ago
@dlu361 he said lightest not cheapest
JakeG895 9 months ago
@JakeG895 he said it right, cheapest, 8:02
olegnabunyi 9 months ago
@dlu361 i think they are about the same. (The one with out the IS)
itsGeorgeAgain 9 months ago
@dlu361 not the cheapest in production
goldenboi24k 9 months ago
@dlu361 Would say that they are at the same prize
ThePhotory 7 months ago
@dlu361 They are about the same price... cheers...
truknayr23 7 months ago
@dlu361 yup, its like 650-700
theycallmeavijeet 7 months ago
@dlu361 Yup!
blinker133 6 months ago
@dlu361 it is the 17-40 f4l which is the cheapest.
kickyourasspls 6 months ago
I was amazed abou this lens, (relatively) cheap and a great performer!
pjakobs 9 months ago
Little whiners crying about "soft corners" on wide lenses like this don't deserve an SLR.
gilegraam 9 months ago 55
@gilegraam I never understood complaints about soft corners on UWA shots, nobody looks at the corners except for lens nerds, but they contribute nothing to the composition of the photo.
edkwon 9 months ago
@gilegraam I guess you haven't seen the nikon wide angle review. PWND
eveningniteshade 9 months ago
@gilegraam Arrogant people don't deserve life.
Jonnyriffic 9 months ago
oh this lense costs only the canon 550D
Ilir7777 9 months ago
Isnt it f/1.4 ?
andreastollanes 9 months ago
@Kai : where is it ? This lace is so beautiful for photography :) Can you tell me the location since I also live in Hong Kong :) Thank for the great video man :)
Can you also make a video review of new Nikkor 50mm lens :)
dentordx 9 months ago
@Kai : where is it ? This lace is so beautiful for photography :) Can you tell me the location since I also live in Hong Kong :) Thank for the great video man :)
dentordx 9 months ago
Nice video , thanks
MJElectronics 9 months ago
where can i get that t-shirt?
sevensquare 9 months ago
Very expensive,,,,,,,,:(
Macagen 9 months ago
I would like 2.8 though... but nice review :)
What did the girl do? She did not film it... and did not talk :O
(@juidas yes)
johanneswingerlang 9 months ago
Kai. Could you guys make a video as too. How and would lens would you uses if you were going to an Amusement park ( Disney) and how to take a good picture with all those people around ? How a can stand out and not look sooo tourist like
tdrag97 9 months ago
Hey, I've been to that park before. Rode a bike along the river nearby. They always fly kites there.
RealStealthyNinja 9 months ago
I bought this lens about a year ago. I knew I made a good choice
stronzo5000 9 months ago
one L of a good deal? :)
tammyshui 9 months ago
Can you make a comparison with Canon 10-22 (: ? It would be great to see the differences :P
KevinLam2491 9 months ago
@KevinLam2491 Well, 10-22 is wider on APS-C, but its only EF-S, so only on APS-C body. It has sh*tload of chromatic aberation (CA), its not particulary sharp, distorted. Rather buy Sigma 10-20, its better if you can get good piece (Sigma has bit poorer quality control).
Mescalamba 9 months ago
Whats wrong with color of the sky on your photos ?
Nexuss123 9 months ago
LOL I just realized [even though this is a Canon review], the only reason I like digital rev reviews is because they say "Nee-kon", not "nai-kon". I heard an american say that british and americans say it differently. WELL, dear americans, if it was meant to say "ny-kon", the company name would be Naikon instead of Nikon! Lol take Japanese classes?
xxgwyloxx 9 months ago