Is The 17-40 f4L Discontinued?

[CoolToolGuy]

The 17-40 L is gone from the Canon USA Web site. It is still listed in the lens chart, but the new EF-S lenses aren't in there yet, so maybe it will be updated soon.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=148

Hmmm?

Have Fun,

[drisley]

OMG, you are right!
That would be an odd thing to do, since the EF-S lenses won't fit most cameras.

[toddb]

no, no, no...I can't afford it yet...don't go. :-(

[Mike H]

The 17-40 L is gone from the Canon USA Web site. It is still listed in the lens chart, but the new EF-S lenses aren't in there yet, so maybe it will be updated soon.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=148

Hmmm?

Have Fun,

The lens is way too popular for them to discontinue. It's probably just an error.

Mike H

[CoolToolGuy]

Geez, I was just chatting about this the other day:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41292&highlight=cold
So, if this is for real, I got one right!

Crystal ball, crystal ball, what else do you see?

Have Fun,

[DocFrankenstein]

:shock: :shock: :shock:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :? 8) :lol:

no way. Come on! :?

[DocFrankenstein]

Seriously. Tell me this is not true. It would make a great competitor for the 10-22 EF-S and has to be eliminated.

:shock: Come on. I'm paranoid. I'm really close to ordering it from cameracanada. :shock:

[CoolToolGuy]

Seriously. Tell me this is not true. It would make a great competitor for the 10-22 EF-S and has to be eliminated.

:shock: Come on. I'm paranoid. I'm really close to ordering it from cameracanada. :shock:

I can't tell you one way or the other. It is nighttime here in the USA, and Canon has pulled back Web changes before, but I think the way it is set up, if it doesn't happen now, it will probably happen soon.

[DocFrankenstein]

http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&gid=2&sgid=7

It's still available in canada :roll: :wink: :shock:

It's not funny! :evil:

[Belmondo]

OMG!!! I just sold a collector's item.

[drisley]

As a replacement, the EF-S 10-22mm lens looks really good.... until you see the price tag. I think the sigma 12-24mm is looking better and better.
Not to mention that the EF-S lens wont work on most cameras.
Sure alot of things going on at Canon these days!

[CoolToolGuy]

Sure alot of things going on at Canon these days!

And there's still a month to go until Photokina! :?

Have Fun,

[roanjohn]

Good thing I have one.

LOVE this lens!!! :D

Ro1

[SWPhotoImaging]

Still 7 listed (new) on eBay. Four in UK, and 3 in USA

[Cadenza]

Will trade mine for a 20D body, if anyone's interested...

But what if they come out with something better?
An f2.8 version?

[timmyquest]

You guys are fretting over nothing...remember what is later this month ;-)

[cmM]

Will trade mine for a 20D body, if anyone's interested...

But what if they come out with something better?
An f2.8 version?
there's a 16-35 f/2.8 L lens.... a little more expensive though :wink:

I have it. And I'm happy I do (the 17-40 I mean).

[Persian-Rice]

Please don't say its true, all I need is like 4 more months...............
Thing like this always happen to me. I save up for something, then it goes off the shelves or the price just magically goes up............

*sigh*

[PekkaM]

Calm down, I got mine just last week ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

I am not ready for this

I am going into a new acad year, and it's gonna be intresting if I have no $$ at the start :shock:

[DocFrankenstein]

Calm down, I got mine just last week ;)
Excellent.

Hey... persian rice. That new lens he got is nearly unused, fresh and juicy. I guess it's gonna be a short flight to helsinki and we'll both get a piece of the glass. Precious glass.... drools

[evilenglishman]

I bought mine a week or two weeks ago in the uk - however the shop i normaly get my lenses from hasn't had any for a while and I had to get it from somewhere else.

[Kinger]

Well from what I see the lens is off the site, and it was there last week. But under standard lenses the EF-S 17-85 is listed. So who knows, maybe they are just prepping for a 17-40 L II.

[roanjohn]

So who knows, maybe they are just prepping for a 17-40 L II.

No, its a 17-55 f4 L IS.

:-)

Ro1

[CyberDyneSystems]

Since it's release.. this lens has been Canon's best selling L lens.

It is only . what.. less than two years old?

Very odd if it were to be either discontinued or replaced when it is selling so well.

[DocFrankenstein]

Why would they take it off the site then? :( This really isn't funny. :?

[Pekka]

Why would they take it off the site then? :( This really isn't funny. :?

Webmaster error.

Why would they discontinue the most popular wide zoom, which won the 2003 TIPA award, too??

It's in shops here in Finland and also in Canon's european product pages:
see here (http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/index.asp?ComponentID=25223&SourcePageID=26112#2)

[vvizard]

I just ordered this lens right now from B&H at least. Lended it some weeks ago. One hell of a lens. Discontinued or not, I don't regret the money I just spent. I mean.. Discontinued, so what? It's still a great lens, even if they stop selling it..

[timmyquest]

My boss knows i'm into photography, he recently went out to CA for vaction and decided he didnt have a lens that was wide enough, so he bought a 17-40mm locally...

He was bragging and bragging and i felt a little envious...then he told me he got it for $1200...i tried not to laugh.

[drisley]

:D :lol:

[mtndew]

Dont worry just got off the phone with Canon support they said it was an oversite the 17-40 is still in stock and by the way the ef-s 10-22 going for $800 may be tempted to check it out

[Sketcher]

I remember a year ago when rumors were traveling that the 70-200 f/4L was being discontinued. Even my local camera shop told me they were having trouble getting any in and they thought it was probably because Canon was discontinuing the lense. I called Canon then and they said there was no intention of discontinuing the 70-200 f/4.

IMO, unless manufacturing costs have suddenly become unmaneagable; I don't see any reason why Canon would discontinue either the 70-200 f/4L or 17-40 f4L. They're the SweetHearts of the "L" series lenses and have done more to get people into the L obsession than perhaps any other marketing reason. The "L" experienced know why they like they're Pro gear. The initiates get into the "L" game by buying the less expensive "L"'s and they're immediately hooked on the quality and performance which leads them further into the obsession. From there, it's always bigger/better/faster; but most Lcoholic stories start with those two lenses.

Who knows, there is smart marketing value in discontinuing a product while it's still in demand to generate a strong second market and make the way for new product.

Time will tell, as it did with last years' rumors of the 70-200 f/4. I tend to view website issues not listing an item as more an oversight or omission than a news bite. Especially with the major updating the Canon sites have been going through lately.

That's my 2mm anyway.

[CyberDyneSystems]

My boss knows i'm into photography, he recently went out to CA for vaction and decided he didnt have a lens that was wide enough, so he bought a 17-40mm locally...

He was bragging and bragging and i felt a little envious...then he told me he got it for $1200...i tried not to laugh.

Oh my god.. I couldn't laugh :( That's just way too sad... :cry:

I don't think I've ever been burned like that on something...

[timmyquest]

My boss knows i'm into photography, he recently went out to CA for vaction and decided he didnt have a lens that was wide enough, so he bought a 17-40mm locally...

He was bragging and bragging and i felt a little envious...then he told me he got it for $1200...i tried not to laugh.

Oh my god.. I couldn't laugh :( That's just way too sad... :cry:

I don't think I've ever been burned like that on something...

It wouldnt be funny if he wasnt always such an ass...

[Belmondo]

It wouldnt be funny if he wasnt always such an ass...

What do you expect? He's a boss.[/img]

[Rayz]

Are you guys easily panicked, or what! :lol:

Even if the 17-40 was discontinued, there are other options as good and perhaps even better, at a similar price. Some of the Sigma 15-30mm lenses are considered to be sharper than both the Canon 16-35 and 17-40. My own Sigma 15-30, after tests in the shop before buying, was very marginally sharper than the Canon 16-35, but not to a degree I consider relevant. The price swayed my decision :D .

I've also heard very good reports on the Tamron 17-35/2.8 which can be had for less than US$500. If you're lucky, this lens would beat the Canon 16-35 and 17-40 easily. But bear in mind there's some variability in the quality of lenses of the same model #. There's always a quality control threshold. Some folks might compare lens A, which happens to be at the lower end the the threshold, with lens B which happens to be at the upper end of the threshold. The person doing the testing can not be expected to know this fact, and concludes that lens B is better than lens A.

Another person has the reverse situation and is convinced that lens A is better than lens B. Of course, both are right.

[RichardtheSane]

The difference between the Canon and Sigma/Tamron is that EVERY Canon 17-40 or 16-35 is of the same high standard. The same certainly
cannot be said of Sigma, and to a lesser degree, Tamron.

But hey, this is a off topic reply to an off topic post because we are not here to discuss lens quality.

[forrest64]

Dont worry just got off the phone with Canon support they said it was an oversite the 17-40 is still in stock and by the way the ef-s 10-22 going for $800 may be tempted to check it out


The "S" series lenses, such as the 10-22, won't work on the 10D which you have listed as your camera.

[Rayz]

The difference between the Canon and Sigma/Tamron is that EVERY Canon 17-40 or 16-35 is of the same high standard.

Yeah! Sure! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[xuxu1]

It has to stay cause it´s on my shopping list! :)

Regards
Ed

[Rayz]

It has to stay cause it´s on my shopping list! :)

Regards
Ed


Well, according to reports on this thread, the 17-40 is staying, so your shopping list can remain intact :D .

[Tapeman]

Photographyblog.com has a story saying the lens is discontinued.

[DocFrankenstein]

Photographyblog.com has a story saying the lens is discontinued.
can you post a link?

[Belmondo]

Photographyblog.com has a story saying the lens is discontinued.
can you post a link?

http://www.photographyblog.com/weblog.php

This is the source they cite:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/rumors.html

[DocFrankenstein]

*Stabs himself in the ass. :?

WHyyyyyy?

[Panza]

Strange news indeed.
It must be one of Canon's best selling lenses of all time (as far as L lenses goes at least).
The only reason I can see for them discontinuing this lens is that they have an improved version ready. How it could be improved without getting close to the 16-35 F2.8 is difficult to fathom though..
If they added IS it would be almost the same as the 16-35 it would be too close, if they improved the max apperture it would be too close... :?

[DocFrankenstein]

They have to elliminate it. It's a competitor for the 10-22 and they can make more money off it, if they make "17-40 mkII" at a higher price. :cry:

I just got a flash and a lens. I am not ready for this...

[SENster7]

Speaking of the 17-40, was it always priced around $689? Am I mixing up the price between the 70-200 f/4L and the 17-40 f/4L, I could have sworn that the 17-40 f/4L was also priced in the mid $500 range just like the 70-200 f4L? I was thinking of picking up the 17-40 for upcoming national park trips, and I was debating between the 17-40 and the Tamron 17-35...

[Andy_T]

From the Bob atkins 'rumour' page:

I'm just reporting that the rumor is in circulation and appears to have at least some basis. However note that the lens is still shown on a number of other Canon websites, including Canon Germany and Canon Japan.

Maybe the people from Canon USA should tell Canon Japan that they have decided to discontinue the lens :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Rayz]

Well, I have to say I'm really surprised at the attitude of some folks on this thread :D .

If Canon really has discontinued this lens, you should all be rejoicing, not complaining. Canon is a rational company. They wouldn't discontinue a money earner if they didn't have something better in the wings.

There's a lot of stiff competition in this focal length range. I mentioned a couple earlier, the Sigma 15-30 and the Tamron 17-35/2.8. If these lenses don't quite have the reach you want, there's also the Tamron 20-40/f2.7-3.5.

By all accounts, this is a superbly sharp lens. I've seen street prices as low as US$400.

You should also be aware that Canon does not, in general, do a good job with its ultra-wide angle lenses. Some 1Ds owners are even prepared to forgo all automatic features and use a Zeiss wide angle lens with adapter in order to get clearly better image quality.

One lens I use quite often is the Canon 24mm tilt & shift lens. I use the shift for stitching purposes. However, as a 24mm prime this lens is very mediocre. According to the highly regarded Photodo reviews, this lens is not nearly as good as the Tamron 20-40/f2.7-3.5, getting an overall rating of just 3.3 as opposed to the Tamron's 3.7.

Can you believe that? A Canon prime (and expensive at that) not as good as a Tamron zoom.

Hurrah! for the discontinuation of the Canon 17-40!

[DocFrankenstein]

Hurrah! for the discontinuation of the Canon 17-40!
You seem really convincing. How about you'll give me the 17-40 if canon doesn't make any better lens, and the "replacement" is the 10-22 EFS? :lol: :wink:

Until then, I am happy being paranoid :lol:

[Rayz]

You seem really convincing.


Well, thanks! Doc! :D

[Tom W]

They have to elliminate it. It's a competitor for the 10-22 and they can make more money off it, if they make "17-40 mkII" at a higher price. :cry:

I just got a flash and a lens. I am not ready for this...

There's a huge difference between 17 and 10 mm, so I don't think its a direct competitor. Especially if you own a 1-series, a 10D, or any of Canon's film EOS cameras, in which case the 10-22 is not usable.

My suspicion is that they've made a design change with a wider zoom range. If they can keep the image quality, build quality, size, and weight, it will be a winner. Look for something like a 20-80 f/4L or something of that nature. That would be a sweet range for any of the Canon EOS bodies, plus it would match up nicely to the 70-200 f/4L.

OK, wishful thinking on my part, but it would be odd for Canon to give up on such a gem of a lens without producing a suitable replacement.

[Doom1701e]

Its baaaaack!

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&mode lid=8940

[CoolToolGuy]

So I guess there is a Webmaster looking for work now, or, for you conspiracy theorists, this might have been a test by Canon to see how much furor would be raised if they DID discontinue it. :shock:

Have Fun,

P.S. Stay tuned for the next installment of "What's wrong with this picture?"

[Belmondo]

But it's still not shown here (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=148)

[HJMinard]

But it's still not shown here (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=148)

Ummm ... yes it is. :lol:

[Belmondo]

That is really strange. It's about 5 minutes since I posted my last message, and it definitely wasn't there. Thre were only three lenses listed on that page, and the 17-40 wasn't one of them. (I always preview my messages and test the links before I post them.)

I guess I'm having an X-files type experience.

[CoolToolGuy]

That is really strange. It's about 5 minutes since I posted my last message, and it definitely wasn't there. Thre were only three lenses listed on that page, and the 17-40 wasn't one of them. (I always preview my messages and test the links before I post them.)

I guess I'm having an X-files type experience.

Are you using a proxy server of some sort? If the page is stored there, it may give you that one.

Then again, I guess even computers can have senior moments. :lol:

[HJMinard]

Now it's gone again ! What the ...?

Belmondo's revenge ...
Admit it ... you're manipulating Canon's site !

[HJMinard]

Now it's gone again ! What the ...?

Belmondo's revenge ...
Admit it ... you're manipulating Canon's site !

Allright, I give up ...
It's back again.
Canon's messing with our heads ... or somebody sprinkled something funny on my Wheaties.

[Cadwell]

Now it's gone again ! What the ...?

Belmondo's revenge ...
Admit it ... you're manipulating Canon's site !

Allright, I give up ...
It's back again.
Canon's messing with our heads ... or somebody sprinkled something funny on my Wheaties.

It's likely that Canon has two or more web servers for the same URL and the info on the 17-40L is on one and not on the other. It'll be pot luck which one you get.

[CoolToolGuy]

Now it's gone again ! What the ...?

Belmondo's revenge ...
Admit it ... you're manipulating Canon's site !

Allright, I give up ...
It's back again.
Canon's messing with our heads ... or somebody sprinkled something funny on my Wheaties.

It's likely that Canon has two or more web servers for the same URL and the info on the 17-40L is on one and not on the other. It'll be pot luck which one you get.

I have noticed this in the past. The thing that I noticed is in the row for flashes. Sometimes there is a single flash displayed, and when you click on it you get the whole range, and sometimes there is a whole row of flashes displayed on the 'home' page.

I have seen this used for failover capability as well as load balancing, but I know little about Canon's IT department. In any case, it seems like the 17-40 continues to live.

Have Fun,

[Sketcher]

Yeah, I'd say just a little DNS propagation is taking place. It's taken up to 24 hours for some of our clients to be able to view new content at times. Sometimes, one part of the country can view and others can't. Doing a check on which DNS locations they're routing through indicated that the primary DNS propagation just hadn't replicated that far yet. But who knows, this technology stuff is all smoke and mirrors - I don't trust any of it! ;).

One way to prove/disprove a DNS issue is to use the IP address of the site you're trying to reach instead of the URL (does not always work if a specific page is within a root structure of an IP address). If the IP works and the URL doesn't, it means that the DSN isn't translating to the main site properly. If the IP addy doesn't work - then the site is either not available, misconfigured or something in between. But, you can't troubleshoot the DNS issue if TCP/IP isn't working properly.

Example: Typing in the IP address 146.184.6.247 into your web browser should bring you directly to the Canon Consmer USA Consumer page. The same site that http://consumer.usa.canon.com reaches.

Here's good webpage for doing lookup stuff:

http://www.dnsstuff.com

consumer.usa.canon.com. A IN 3600 146.184.6.247

usa.canon.com. NS IN 3600 nydns1.cusa.canon.com.
usa.canon.com. NS IN 3600 nydns2.cusa.canon.com.
usa.canon.com. NS IN 3600 ns3e.ca.canon.com.
nydns1.cusa.canon.com. A IN 3600 146.184.6.224
nydns2.cusa.canon.com. A IN 3600 146.184.6.225
ns3e.ca.canon.com. A IN 3600 146.184.4.123