17-40L to be discontinued

[.me]

as this guy says, on what he thinks is true, but he says that that lens will be discontinued
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/354076

[Lord_Malone]

as this guy says, on what he thinks is true, but he says that that lens will be discontinued
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/354076

I find this a little hard to swallow.

[Tom W]

I don't believe it either, unless something better is introduced. I know that it's a full-frame lens, but its introduction and price-point were aimed squarely at the D60, 10D, & 20D shooters.

Personally, I could go for replacing it with something even wider (and full-frame) but I suspect that the price would go up as well.

[.me]

There's another thread here -- talking about EF(S) 17-55 2.8 --- that could be the replacement...

[.me]

tamron made this Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] which would cost under 500 i'd think..
why in the world would canon NOT make something that would cost more? like 1500 :D

[.me]

Unless this tamron is for 1.6x sensors

tamron made this Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] which would cost under 500 i'd think..
why in the world would canon NOT make something that would cost more? like 1500 :D

[SuzyView]

Canon rarely discontinues a lens, especially one that has a good track record (despite some complaints about partciular lenses here in the forum). But in case they do, better grab yours while you can! :)

[shiato storm]

why would canon discontinue one of their best selling lenses? its almost like cancelling their 70-200 IS...I somehow doubt they'd do that.

[In2Photos]

Unless this tamron is for 1.6x sensors

It is for 1.6x sensors. The Di II is for cropped sensor cameras.

[.me]

I'd say that their best selling is 24-70 :)
well which one would you get 70-200 IS or 50-250 2.8 IS? if it was the same price?
price point says almost the same in most cases (if not lower) but they give you more

[.me]

ok.. than never mind.. but still i think that there was too much distortion on the edges with 17-40 if they fixed it - its great :)

It is for 1.6x sensors. The Di II is for cropped sensor cameras.

[Tom W]

There's another thread here -- talking about EF(S) 17-55 2.8 --- that could be the replacement...

That is possible, though the 17-55/2.8 would almost certainly be a 1.6X lens. At full-frame, going from ultrawide to "normal" is quite a feat. Even the 16-35 is touching up against the limits of reasonable design and manufacture.

I have to say though that given that the 17-40L's most likely buyer is shooting a 1.6X camera (17 mm is very wide on full-frame), perhaps Canon's thinking is that the 2.8 lens will serve that spot even better. Lord knows they need a fast lens in the normal zoom range for the 1.6X format.

[.me]

agreed.. maybe they will just speeden up 17-40, but than it would kill 16-35, because 1 mm will not do any diffirence... :)

[Rumjungle]

Unless they don't market it as an "L" anymore and make it an EF-S.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh sure Canon is going to run out and discontinue there biggest selling L lens... :rolleyes:

You can't compare EF-S to Non EF-s.. remember that the EF-S won't work on the 5D or any 1 series..

That's four current models... (five if you count the fact that B&H is stocking 10Ds again) and the majority.. the vast majority of the historic models that won't take EF-S. And None of the film bodies..

The 17-40mm will continue to have a market in the larger than 1.6x framed cameras.

[CoolToolGuy]

Oh sure Canon is going to run out and discontinue there biggest selling L lens... :rolleyes:

You can't compare EF-S to Non EF-s.. remember that the EF-S won't work on the 5D or any 1 series..

That's four current models... (five if you count the fact that B&H is stocking 10Ds again) and the majority.. the vast majority of the historic models that won't take EF-S. And None of the film bodies..

The 17-40mm will continue to have a market in the larger than 1.6x framed cameras.

I don't think so - I think Canon wants to sell 16-35 Ls to that market.

Have Fun,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Then why did they just introduce the 24-105mm f/4L to compliment the f/4L range just a few months back if they feel the f/4L range is sucking sales out of the f/2.8 lenses?

I simply don't buy this rumor for a second.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have held a camera with a 17-40 mounted, but I've never really used it, so I don't consider myself an expert. But there have been several comparisons of the 17-40 L to the EF-S 17-85 IS where the 17-40 didn't do so well, and I have heard reports of corner problems on full-frame bodies. If the 17-55 IS is a new formula and not just an evolution of an existing lens I think Canon would put a lot of effort into making it the new standard of normal zooms for 1.6 bodies. Where does that leave the 17-40?

As for the 'L' designation, they may have some internal rules about giving an EF-S lens the 'L', but if they can get $1000 for it I don't think they care whether they put a red ring on it or not.

So that gets me back to the 16-35 L, and I think that's what they will push.

Have Fun,

[rklepper]

as this guy says, on what he thinks is true, but he says that that lens will be discontinued
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/354076

On those items that we now know he was wrong on all accounts. Suppose if you guess often enough you are bound to be correct sometime.

[sapearl]

It would seem the height of illogic to financially shoot themselves in the foot like that - it's one of their cash cows.

No..... makes no sense; just can't believe it. Either someone got some really bad info, or he was trying to provoke a discussion.

why would canon discontinue one of their best selling lenses? its almost like cancelling their 70-200 IS...I somehow doubt they'd do that.