Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #151
Canon_Lover
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: WA
Posts: 2,406
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
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.
To bring this back ON-TOPIC

The whole package of lenses and bodies are lighter with APS-C. The 10-22 is a huge weight savings over the 17-40 and 16-35 lenses with very close to the same image quality (IMO). Combine that with a Rebel body, which is even more of a weight savings, and it is pretty significant.

I've been shooting since the early 1990's and have watched the market change over the years. There are VASTLY more people today wanting a "SLR" that is light enough to carry around all day. APS-C digital is higher quality than 35mm film these days (IMO), so people are thrilled to have such great results from such a small system.

How much do people wanna bet that 35mm was considered a passing fad and would be replaced with MF and LF again?
__________________
Canon_Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #152
Andrew_WOT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 1,417
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Can't argue here

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens
Manufacturer Specification Weight 16.8 oz
Actual Weight 16.6 oz
Lens Hood Weight 1.2 oz
In-Use Weight 17.8 oz

Canon 10-22
Manufacturer Specification Weight 13.6 oz
Actual Weight 13.6 oz
Lens Hood Weight 1.2 oz
In-Use Weight 14.8 oz


3 extra ounces (85g) surely can make night and day difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canon_Lover View Post
To bring this back ON-TOPIC

The whole package of lenses and bodies are lighter with APS-C. The 10-22 is a huge weight savings over the 17-40 and 16-35 lenses with very close to the same image quality (IMO). Combine that with a Rebel body, which is even more of a weight savings, and it is pretty significant.

I've been shooting since the early 1990's and have watched the market change over the years. There are VASTLY more people today wanting a "SLR" that is light enough to carry around all day. APS-C digital is higher quality than 35mm film these days (IMO), so people are thrilled to have such great results from such a small system.

How much do people wanna bet that 35mm was considered a passing fad and would be replaced with MF and LF again?
Andrew_WOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #153
mattmorgan44
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 644
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
3 extra ounces (85g) surely can make night and day difference.
Well on paper my 5D Mark II is 810 grams and my cousins 60D is 755 grams, but the 60D feels much, much lighter for some reason. I think it is because of the build and materials. Paired with the 18-135mm it feels as light as a feather compared to mine.
__________________
5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff

Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses
mattmorgan44 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #154
Tommydigi
Goldmember
 
Tommydigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,848
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

As much as I like full frame I got the 60D for the reasons stated above. I wanted a good smaller camera and I looked at a lot of the 4/3 offerings, sony NEX etc. and I just prefer the controls of a good DSLR plus I get the added bonus of using all my Canon lenses. The 60D is slightly lighter but its also smaller, has a pop up flash and shares the 5d2 battery (which also factored in my decision) Not sure if APS-C would go away or not but my guess is it will get smaller assuming it stays. I also like getting double duty out of my lenses. I get a poor mans 35L, 85 (ish) L etc.

FWIW, going back to the o.p. the 17-40 seems pretty nice on APS-C, just not a lot of reach thought I do admit it gets little use there but overall its a good lens, just more fun on FF
__________________
Website | Flickr | Blog

Canon 5D2/60D/G15 24LII 50L 100L 135L 400L 40 STM 17-40 70-300L
Tommydigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #155
NavyShrink
Member
 
NavyShrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Yomitan-son, Okinawa, Japan
Posts: 259
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canon_Lover View Post
There are VASTLY more people today wanting a "SLR" that is light enough to carry around all day. APS-C digital is higher quality than 35mm film these days (IMO), so people are thrilled to have such great results from such a small system.
As you know, it's not the FF sensor that's weighing these bodies down. I think we'll soon see lighter, more "Rebel-like" FF bodies on the market in a few years (for those consumers who value portability/comfort over build/durability). If Fuji can put an APC-S sensor in the X100, there's no reason we can't place a FF sensor in a lightweight DSLR body.
__________________
5DII x2 | 7D | 17-40L | 35L | Σ 50 | 85L | 135L | 70-200L IS II | Fuji X100
NavyShrink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th of April 2012 (Sat)   #156
Old Baldy
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Lyon, MI
Posts: 708
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

To the OP's question, I love my 17-40L and am only selling because I'm selling ALL my Canon DSLR gear for something that suits me better.

It's a great lens. One of the true L bargains.
Old Baldy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th of April 2012 (Sun)   #157
sloanbj
Member
 
sloanbj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Posts: 296
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

What makes you think there are more for sale than there ought to be?
__________________
Flickr 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii

Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax
sloanbj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd of May 2012 (Wed)   #158
mattmorgan44
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 644
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
You must be in minority then or not being honest to yourself.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
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.
.
You are missing a few important points. Crop bodies do offer a significant advantage over full frame to Canon, that is lenses are much cheaper for them to develop. And Canon may not invest heavily in EF-S lenses, but the profit margin would be much bigger compared to EF and L lenses, making it even more worth while to keep crop bodies.

Replacing crop bodies completely would mean ending the EF-S line of lenses wouldn't it? I don't think Canon would do that. It may work for Fuji, I don't know much about their line up. But I would imagine Canon relies on the EF-S line for many reasons. It is much cheaper for Canon to develop EF-S lenses with the cameras crop factor, meaning they can sell them cheaper and market them to a cheaper customer base.

I could see Canon bringing out a cheaper full frame camera. If Nikon brings out the rumored D600, Canon may follow just to stay competitive. But I doubt they will do away with the crop camera completely.
__________________
5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff

Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

Last edited by mattmorgan44 : 2nd of May 2012 (Wed) at 00:31.
mattmorgan44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd of May 2012 (Wed)   #159
kf095
Cream of the Crop
 
kf095's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
Posts: 5,542
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattmorgan44 View Post
You are missing a few important points. Crop bodies do offer a significant advantage over full frame to Canon, that is lenses are much cheaper for them to develop.
4/3 cameras killing Rebels market, which is mostly entry market for consumers with p&s, no OVF cameras for exactly the same reason. Thier lenses are cheaper compare to ef-s lenses and more lenses available, including old MF lenses.
Look at the entry price of new Oly with weather sealed zoom and body. It is better compare to 600D and 15-85 ef-s in price, portability and build.

Cheaper and small FF camera would be digital rangefinder. For now here is only Leica, which using monopoly to overprice their product.
__________________
Site. Flickr. DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

Last edited by kf095 : 2nd of May 2012 (Wed) at 00:58.
kf095 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd of May 2012 (Wed)   #160
kin2son
User is banned from forums
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 4,546
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf095 View Post
4/3 cameras killing Rebels market
+1

m43 will pretty much replace aps-c imo. People that buys entry level dslr are normally the ones who want a decent enough camera in a compact package. m43 totally owns that.

The difference in IQ between aps-c and m43 is negligible (to beginners anyway). I mean why would any beginners want to carry a 600D/60D instead of a Oly PEN or Nex when both gives similar results?

FF is here to stay, entry level dslr (aps-c) is going to retire soon, except maybe 7D/7D2

Last edited by kin2son : 2nd of May 2012 (Wed) at 01:29.
kin2son is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th of May 2012 (Sun)   #161
mattmorgan44
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 644
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kin2son View Post
+1

m43 will pretty much replace aps-c imo. People that buys entry level dslr are normally the ones who want a decent enough camera in a compact package. m43 totally owns that.

The difference in IQ between aps-c and m43 is negligible (to beginners anyway). I mean why would any beginners want to carry a 600D/60D instead of a Oly PEN or Nex when both gives similar results?

FF is here to stay, entry level dslr (aps-c) is going to retire soon, except maybe 7D/7D2
I disagree, I think beginners want the same style camera as their dream cameras, usually 5D's, D800's etc, just in a cheaper and possibly smaller package. They usually a not even concerned with image quality differences, they go for features and price. They would probably like to carry the 600D because it has similar ergonomics to the cameras they wish to move into as they advance.

And that doesn't even factor Canon into the equation. EF-S lenses are cheaper to produce so they can be sold cheaper and with a higher profit margin. Time will tell but I think APS-C is here to stay at least for the near future
__________________
5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff

Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses
mattmorgan44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th of May 2012 (Sun)   #162
Maxdave
Member
 
Maxdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 876
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Based on the testing cited here, at f/5.6 and up there's little difference, if any on a FF ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
The biggest advantage of 16-35 is that at F4 it's stopped down i.e. sharper. Otherwise wide open they both are pretty bad in corners.
Stop them down and the difference is non existent
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=4
I like interactive blur indexes on SLRGear
17-40
16-35 II
Good copy of 17-40L is very sharp, I've read some reports that earlier copies were suffering significant corner softness and that situation was silently remedied by Canon. Anyway, I was very happy with 17-40 on 7D and just ecstatic on 5D Mk III now. Coming from APS-C to FF I was fully prepared for corners to go into mush but was very pleasantly surprised even by wide open performance.
__________________
5D3,1D3,M,S90,Voking EF-M Adapter,GPS-E2,2x580EX,430EX,90EX,Rokie 8,Siggy 8-16,EF17-40L,EF-M18-55IS,Samy SYTS24-C 24TS,EF24-105L IS,EF50 f/1.4,EF85 f/1.8,EF70-200 f/4L IS,EF100-400L IS,Kenko DGX 1.4X,RRS & Pro-Media L-Brackets,Sirui 306/K-20,Giottos MT-7371/MH-3300/VR,Velbon El Carmagne 530,Phottix & Canon Remotes,Lowepro Backpack,ThinkTank Retrospective 20 & Modular System,OpTech straps,Lexar & San Disk Cards
Maxdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th of May 2012 (Sun)   #163
Preeb
Goldmember
 
Preeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
Posts: 2,351
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
Can't argue here

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens
Manufacturer Specification Weight 16.8 oz
Actual Weight 16.6 oz
Lens Hood Weight 1.2 oz
In-Use Weight 17.8 oz

Canon 10-22
Manufacturer Specification Weight 13.6 oz
Actual Weight 13.6 oz
Lens Hood Weight 1.2 oz
In-Use Weight 14.8 oz


3 extra ounces (85g) surely can make night and day difference.
You and the post you are quoting are comparing apples to oranges. On a crop body, the 17-40 is a moderate wide to normal zoom, while the 10-22 is an ulltrawide zoom. Different uses means that if you need the 10mm, the 17-40 ain't gonna get it done. The only time the comparison is valid if you are also comparing crop to FF bodies, and then the weight difference becomes even more pronounced. Use the 17-55 for an equal use comparison.
__________________
Rick

60D - EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 -- EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS -- EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC
Preeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th of May 2012 (Sun)   #164
Andrew_WOT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 1,417
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preeb View Post
You and the post you are quoting are comparing apples to oranges. On a crop body, the 17-40 is a moderate wide to normal zoom, while the 10-22 is an ulltrawide zoom. Different uses means that if you need the 10mm, the 17-40 ain't gonna get it done. The only time the comparison is valid if you are also comparing crop to FF bodies, and then the weight difference becomes even more pronounced. Use the 17-55 for an equal use comparison.
I have merely replied to the post comparing weight savings with 10-22 over 17-40 where there is hardly any and wasn't trying to compare anything.
If you want to throw 17-55 into equation, at 24.4 oz it is quite a bit heavier than 17-40.
APS-C versus FF body savings.
7D and 5DMKIII here, can't tell any noticeable difference in weight.
30.3 oz (860g) vs 28.9 oz (820g) - 40 grams, that surely gonna break my back.
When I want to go lighter I just grab my S95.

Last edited by Andrew_WOT : 6th of May 2012 (Sun) at 12:24.
Andrew_WOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th of May 2012 (Sun)   #165
Preeb
Goldmember
 
Preeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
Posts: 2,351
Default Re: Why so many 17-40s for sale?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post
I have merely replied to the post comparing weight savings with 10-22 over 17-40 where there is hardly any and wasn't trying to compare anything.
If you want to throw 17-55 into equation, at 24.4 oz it is quite a bit heavier than 17-40.
APS-C versus FF body savings.
7D and 5DMKIII here, can't tell any noticeable difference in weight.
30.3 oz (860g) vs 28.9 oz (820g) - 40 grams, that surely gonna break my back.
When I want to go lighter I just grab my S95.
LOL. I still have my old A720IS too... makes a bit of a bulge but fits in a pocket most of the time. With Av, Tv, and M modes, and 8mp, it takes decent photos as long as I'm not trying to catch an action shot.
__________________
Rick

60D - EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 -- EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS -- EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC
Preeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.