EF 17-70/4L???

[slin100]

Saw a rumor on Usenet and DPR, so take it with a grain of salt. The rumor is that Canon may be announcing an EF 17-70/4L in the coming weeks. Note: I'm not confusing it with the existing EF 17-40/4L or EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS. OTOH, the rumor may have originated as the result of a typo.

[Cadwell]

It would seem to be a strange thing for them to do... That lens would seem to be competing with a lot of their own kit...

16-35L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 20-35USM, 17-85USM, 24-85USM, 28-80 II, 17-85 USM

I'd say that market is fairly crowded already.

[Jesper]

Like you say, someone probably typed 17-70 instead of 17-40. I've seen that happen before..... :roll: that's how rumours get started....

However, I wouldn't mind a 17-70 - it would be even more useful than the 17-40, which is my favourite lens on my 10D.

[Cadwell]

However, I wouldn't mind a 17-70 - it would be even more useful than the 17-40, which is my favourite lens on my 10D.

Yup, if it was on the market and any good I'd probably buy one. It would make an ideal pits/paddock lens. I just doubt it somehow.

[CoolToolGuy]

This is the first I've heard of it, but it is not that far-fetched - If it is true, we may be seeing the beginning of the shift in lenses to the digital side. Take a look at Canon's 'normal zooms' and it is a bewildering mix of way too many offerings. I think many of the 'pedestrian' film lenses are going to go away, replaced by new versions with similar ranges for the 1.6 crop factor. If so, this could be the first (of many?).

Have Fun,

[karusel]

It is not unbelievable... the zoom range is very sweet.

However it would not necessarily compete with other lens, I think... the 16-35 and 24-75 are both 2.8... and the 17-70 would probably not come cheap, I would assume.

[gramps]

seeing as though I just got my 24 - 70 L it would not surprise me if they come out with the "17" version..............if they do I hope it will be a bit smaller that the 24 - 70.............my wife is starting to complain about carrying it for me!!!!!!!

[CoolToolGuy]

But just suppose it was an EF-S 17-70 f4L :?:

Less competition for the 16-35 etc.

Have Fun,

[Jon]

But plenty for the new 17-85 EF-S IS.

[CoolToolGuy]

But plenty for the new 17-85 EF-S IS.

Good point - how about f2.8?

Then it sort-of becomes the EF-S version of the 24-70 L (almost).

Have Fun,

[Tom W]

I think it would be a suitable successor for the 17-40L. It would offer a pretty sweet FOV equivalent of a 27-112 lens on a 1.6X camera - not shabby at all, especially with a constant f/4 aperture.

Competition for the 16-35 - no more than the 17-40 is now. For the 24-70 - probably a bit, but there are plenty of people out there that would jump at a well-made, lighter, somewhat less pricey zoom for their 1.3 or 1.6X body. Heck, it would provide a nice wide-normal zoom range for full-frame as well. A good wedding/party lens, particularly with flash.

[Tom W]

But just suppose it was an EF-S 17-70 f4L :?:

Less competition for the 16-35 etc.

Have Fun,

That would be interesting, and much less costly to build, but it wouldn't do me a bit of good.

[EXA1a]

Let's pretend: Canon brings out an EF 17-70/4L lens.

What are your expectations?
- Slightly bigger and heavier than 17-40
- Same optical quality as the 17-40 in the wide range
- Slightly more expensive

What is realistic?
- MUCH bigger and MUCH heavier than the 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)
- SERIOUS optical flaws at both ends (not really "L"-like)
- MUCH more expensive than 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)

Would you still be interested?
I wouldn't.

--Jens--

[CoolToolGuy]

Let's pretend: Canon brings out an EF 17-70/4L lens.

What are your expectations?
- Slightly bigger and heavier than 17-40
- Same optical quality as the 17-40 in the wide range
- Slightly more expensive

What is realistic?
- MUCH bigger and MUCH heavier than the 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)
- SERIOUS optical flaws at both ends (not really "L"-like)
- MUCH more expensive than 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)

Would you still be interested?
I wouldn't.

--Jens--

If it were an EF-S 'L' would I be interested?

Smaller and lighter than the equivalent full-frame lens?

You bet your sweet bippy I would - that 24-70 f2.8L is a load to carry!

Its only a matter of time...

Have Fun,

[MarkH]

Let's pretend: Canon brings out an EF 17-70/4L lens.

What are your expectations?
- Slightly bigger and heavier than 17-40
- Same optical quality as the 17-40 in the wide range
- Slightly more expensive

What is realistic?
- MUCH bigger and MUCH heavier than the 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)
- SERIOUS optical flaws at both ends (not really "L"-like)
- MUCH more expensive than 17-40 (like 24-70/2.8)


Realistic would be somewhere in between.

Definately noticably bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 17-40 (obviously). But no need to be as heavy as the 24-70 f2.8, you would generally expect f4 to be lighter than f2.8.

Hopefully optical quality would be very good through the whole range (probably not quite as good as the 17-40 though)

'Serious optical flaws' at both ends? Maybe on a 10x zoom but unlikely on a 4.1 x zoom.

If it were really expensive like a 24-70 then they better make it f2.8! It should be priced dearer than the 17-40 but cheaper than the f2.8 lens.

Maybe the 17-70 f4L would be as cheap as the 17-40 f4L + Tamron 28-75 f2.8. If so then you lose the f2.8 but gain L quality and save having to swap lenses.

I would consider this lens after I get my 70-200, except I suspect that it probably is a typo.

[burgerdude]

I know I'm resurrecting a nearly 6 yr old thread but I gotta tell you I would love to see an EF 17-70 IS f4 made. That combined with an EF 70-200 IS f4 would be a great two lens setup for light travel with my 5d2.