Why so many 17-40s for sale?

[Tommydigi]

10-22 is much wider but 17-40 is more practical. I had that combo before FF and it was good but its a really odd place to have to switch.

[tivoboy]

I think a lot of people might be making the jump from a 1.6x crop to a FF camera, and for that this lens which is REALL GREAT for a crop body becomes a bit too wide at the wide end for a Full Frame body. It isn't the more walk around lens category as something a bit closer to 20-24 at the wide end. AND, they could be funding a 5dMKIII kit with 24-105.

[AntonLargiader]

Wasn't the 17-40 sold as a kit with the 5D2 at some point? I thought a friend of mine bought his 5D2 that way. If so, that might explain an excess of them on the market.

[mattmorgan44]

Originally Posted by tivoboy

I think a lot of people might be making the jump from a 1.6x crop to a FF camera, and for that this lens which is REALL GREAT for a crop body becomes a bit too wide at the wide end. It isn't the more walk around lens category as something a bit closer to 20-24 at the wide end. AND, they could be funding a 5dMKIII kit with 24-105.

The lens is less wide on a crop body than a full frame camera.?

Originally Posted by J.Litton

This thread just has me wondering if I am not better off selling the 17-40 and getting the 10-22 and a 24-105. Then with my 100-400 and 500mm, I have all focal ranges covered

If you are into landscape I would consider the 10-22mm for sure. However I wouldn't replace the 17-40 with the 24-105. For your everyday walk around lens the 24-105 isn't wide enough. Consider the Sigma 17-55mm OS which gives you f/2.8 as well, something none of your lenses currently give you. If you must stay with Canon, the 17-55mm IS is awesome but it's expensive. If you dont mind the variable aperture, the 15-85mm IS gives you the equivalent field of view as a 24-136mm lens on ff, PERFECT for a general purpose lens and outstanding image quality!

[AntonLargiader]

Originally Posted by mattmorgan44

The lens is less wide on a crop body than a full frame camera.?

You mis-parsed his quote. It was

this lens which is REALLY GREAT for a crop body becomes a bit too wide at the wide end (on FF)

[mattmorgan44]

Originally Posted by AntonLargiader

You mis-parsed his quote. It was

Ahh ok, Thanks.

Ps can't be too wide! Just needs longer on the long end

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by Tommydigi

10-22 is much wider but 17-40 is more practical. I had that combo before FF and it was good but its a really odd place to have to switch.

Essentially, 10-22 is to crop what the 17-40 (or 16-35) is to FF, and they are designed to work that way. If either is used in a fashion it wasn't intended for, the results will probably be at least somewhat less satisfactory. People have adapted the 10-22 to work with FF, although that seems a bit extreme to me. Many more people have used the 17-40 with crop bodies, and with a lot of success. I don't feel that it's the best in that range for a crop, but that doesn't make it wrong, usually just means someone is trying to save $300 (the difference between the 17-40 and the 17-55).

Or they are enamored of the "L" and the red ring.

One more comment... In my opinion, the only "entry" level lenses are the kit or kit equivalent lenses. Most of the non-kit lenses are priced by features and in some cases age. Fewer features, lower price - the 17-40 is a non-IS, f4 aperture, thus it's not as costly as the 17-55 f2.8 with IS - it's simple math. Price has little to do with whether it's an entry level lens or not. I'd find it hard to believe that any "L" lens can be considered as "entry" level.

[modchild]

I'd actually like to get hold of a 17-40 f4 L as the widest I've got at the moment is a 24-105 f4 L which is OK on my 5D3 but not too wide on my 60D. I don't do much wide shooting, but I would have one at a good price just for the 'in case' situation. I want to get an 85 and a 50 1.4 first though, then either a 35 or something similar so I won't be getting a 17-40 very soon.

[Andrew_WOT]

Originally Posted by Preeb

I don't feel that it's the best in that range for a crop, but that doesn't make it wrong, usually just means someone is trying to save $300 (the difference between the 17-40 and the 17-55).

- Superior build
- FF compatibility
- Weather seal
At least these were deciding factors for me, and yes, no dust inside .

[Canon_Lover]

Originally Posted by Preeb

Essentially, 10-22 is to crop what the 17-40 (or 16-35) is to FF, and they are designed to work that way. If either is used in a fashion it wasn't intended for, the results will probably be at least somewhat less satisfactory. People have adapted the 10-22 to work with FF, although that seems a bit extreme to me. Many more people have used the 17-40 with crop bodies, and with a lot of success. I don't feel that it's the best in that range for a crop, but that doesn't make it wrong, usually just means someone is trying to save $300 (the difference between the 17-40 and the 17-55).

Or they are enamored of the "L" and the red ring.

One more comment... In my opinion, the only "entry" level lenses are the kit or kit equivalent lenses. Most of the non-kit lenses are priced by features and in some cases age. Fewer features, lower price - the 17-40 is a non-IS, f4 aperture, thus it's not as costly as the 17-55 f2.8 with IS - it's simple math. Price has little to do with whether it's an entry level lens or not. I'd find it hard to believe that any "L" lens can be considered as "entry" level.

True. Although I wouldn't call the 17-40 equal to 10-22 on FF and crop. 17mm on FF is several degrees narrower than 10mm on crop. 16mm on FF is more equivalent.

That was the number one thing I hated when went to FF with 17-40 after crop with my 10-22. When you try to correct the heavy distortion of the 17mm it gets even narrower. 10-22 and 16-35 don't need distortion correction as often.

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT

- Superior build
- FF compatibility
- Weather seal
At least these were deciding factors for me, and yes, no dust inside .

- Superior build -- Matter of opinion - I owned both and don't see it.

- FF compatibility -- Only matters if you shoot FF - I will never do so as long as the cost is so prohibitive.

- Weather seal -- Again, only matters if your body is also sealed.

For me the addition of IS, the additional reach, and the f2.8 were deciding factors in making the 17-55 my preferred choice. And I've had no dust in mine in 8 months of use.

[Andrew_WOT]

Originally Posted by Preeb

- Superior build -- Matter of opinion - I owned both and don't see it.

You must be in minority then or not being honest to yourself.

Originally Posted by Preeb

- FF compatibility -- Only matters if you shoot FF - I will never do so as long as the cost is so prohibitive.

Let's face it, crop format does not have future, see how *heavily* Canon invest into EF-S lenses. 5DMKII price dropped below the floor, 5DMKIII combines modern technologies introduced in 7D and 1Dx at a moderate and reachable for most serious enthusiasts price and the trend will continue. APS-C just does not offer significantly smaller package compared to FF (7D and 5DMKIII are almost identical in size) at the expense of IQ and ISO hit and inconvenience of EF lenses FL conversion factor. We will probably see Rebels with kit lenses being offered for a couple more years but I don't see how they could compete with smaller format P&S like S100 and whatever will replace it for occasional shooters.

Originally Posted by Preeb

- Weather seal -- Again, only matters if your body is also sealed.

Well, it happened that FF and crop I owned were.

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT

Let's face it, crop format does not have future, see how *heavily* Canon invest into EF-S lenses. 5DMKII price dropped below the floor, 5DMKIII combines modern technologies introduced in 7D and 1Dx at a moderate and reachable for most serious enthusiasts price and the trend will continue. APS-C just does not offer significantly smaller package compared to FF (7D and 5DMKIII are almost identical in size) at the expense of IQ and ISO hit and inconvenience of EF lenses FL conversion factor. We will probably see Rebels with kit lenses being offered for a couple more years but I don't see how they could compete with smaller format P&S like S100 and whatever will replace it for occasional shooters.

Do you really believe that? You are in a fantasy world. They keep raising the price of FF bodies, yet you really think that a hobbyist is going to make the Rebel and other crops obsolete? You really cant be serious. Canon sells several times more crop bodies than FF, and I'd imagine that Nikon is the same. The P&S still have to prove that they can compete in shutter lag and frame rate, and there are still many thousands of hobby photographers who want more than the typical P&S can provide in flexibility.

I don't see the DSLR offerings changing anytime before I'm long in the grave. In the extremely unlikely eventuality that you are right, what I have now will last me until I no longer have any interest in worldly matters.

[NavyShrink]

Originally Posted by Preeb

I don't see the DSLR offerings changing anytime before I'm long in the grave.

I humbly disagree. Nikon is rumored to be releasing a full frame D600 as a "cheaper cousin" to the D800, and for about $1500. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon soon followed suit (imagine something along the lines of a 60D with a FF sensor). It's going to happen. Crop sensors will soon (within 5 years) be relegated to compact-body cameras. The Fuji X100 has already done this, and I anticipate similar cameras by other manufacturers will soon follow.

[Andrew_WOT]

Originally Posted by NavyShrink

I humbly disagree. Nikon is rumored to be releasing a full frame D600 as a "cheaper cousin" to the D800, and for about $1500. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon soon followed suit (imagine something along the lines of a 60D with a FF sensor). It's going to happen. Crop sensors will soon (within 5 years) be relegated to compact-body cameras. The Fuji X100 has already done this, and I anticipate similar cameras by other manufacturers will soon follow.

Yep, the only reason APS-C surfaced was outrageous, at that time, price of silicone wafers for sensors. These days with the advent of technologies this is not a real issue anymore. The only reason to go for smaller sensor nowadays would be a smaller form factor, and as we can see with recent camera bodies this is not the case for APS-S vs. FF as size wise they are virtually the same.

Originally Posted by Preeb

Do you really believe that? You are in a fantasy world.

I live in my fantasy with FF body sporting the best AF system ever offered by Cannon that I couldn't even dream of just a year ago. Budget FFs are just around the corner, 5DMKII is already there and 5dMKIII price is nothing comparing to first FF DSLRs offered.