Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 15:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why so many 17-40s for sale?

 
Canon_Lover
Goldmember
Avatar
2,695 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2011
Location: WA
     
Apr 28, 2012 20:51 |  #151

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345560 (external link)
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?


My 500PX (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
1,418 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: CA
     
Apr 28, 2012 21:04 |  #152

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.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14345582 (external link)
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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Apr 28, 2012 21:19 |  #153

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345622 (external link)
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,534 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 373
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Apr 28, 2012 21:34 |  #154

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 (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NavyShrink
Senior Member
Avatar
259 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Yomitan-son, Okinawa, Japan
     
Apr 28, 2012 22:38 |  #155

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14345582 (external link)
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Old ­ Baldy
Senior Member
718 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Sep 2010
Location: South Lyon, MI
     
Apr 28, 2012 23:06 as a reply to  @ NavyShrink's post |  #156

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.


OB
Gear list
Flickr Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
Avatar
297 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
     
Apr 29, 2012 01:42 |  #157

What makes you think there are more for sale than there ought to be?


Flickr (external link) 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii
Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
May 02, 2012 00:18 as a reply to  @ NavyShrink's post |  #158

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345174 (external link)
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.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345560 (external link)
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,263 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
May 02, 2012 00:55 |  #159

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14364603 (external link)
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.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 02, 2012 01:18 |  #160
bannedPermanent ban

kf095 wrote in post #14364716 (external link)
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 ;)


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
May 06, 2012 06:00 |  #161

kin2son wrote in post #14364774 (external link)
+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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maxdave
Goldmember
Avatar
1,162 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 100
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
May 06, 2012 08:14 |  #162

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

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14310441 (external link)
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 …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)
I like interactive blur indexes on SLRGear
17-40 (external link)
16-35 II (external link)
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.


5D3,1D4,S90,6S&Moment Lenses,Hero4Silver,GPS​-E2,2x580EX,430EX,90EX,​EF16-35L f/4 IS,Samy SYTS24-C 24TS,EF24-105L IS,EF50 f/1.4,EF70-200 f/4L IS,EF300 f/4L IS,EF100-400L I IS,Kenko DGX 1.4X,Canon 2X TC Mk II, RRS&Pro-Media L-Brackets,Manfrotto MHXPRO-3WG & Roller 50,Sirui 306&K-20,Giottos MT-7371&MH-3300,Velbon ElCarmagne 530,CamRanger,Phottix&​Canon Remotes,Lowepro Backpack,ThinkTank Retro 20&Modular System,OpTech straps,Lexar/San Disk Cards

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,522 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
May 06, 2012 08:32 |  #163

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345622 (external link)
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
1,418 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: CA
     
May 06, 2012 10:30 |  #164

Preeb wrote in post #14387373 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,522 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
May 06, 2012 12:49 |  #165

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14387782 (external link)
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,326 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why so many 17-40s for sale?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Lisann
822 guests, 362 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.