LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Why so many 17-40s for sale?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 22 Apr 2012 (Sunday) 15:15   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Canon_Lover
Goldmember
Joined Jan 2011
2,527 posts
WA
[MORE/SHARE]

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345560external 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?

Post #151, Apr 28, 2012 20:51:48


Landscape Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2010
1,417 posts
CA
[MORE/SHARE]

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 #14345582external 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?

Post #152, Apr 28, 2012 21:04:43




LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2012
644 posts
Gold Coast, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345622external 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.

Post #153, Apr 28, 2012 21:19:42


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
Goldmember
Tommydigi's Avatar
Joined May 2010
4,883 posts
Chicago
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #154, Apr 28, 2012 21:34:22


Websiteexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Blogexternal link
Canon 5D2/60D/G15 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 17-40L • 70-300L

LOG IN TO REPLY
NavyShrink
Senior Member
NavyShrink's Avatar
Joined May 2011
259 posts
Yomitan-son, Okinawa, Japan
[MORE/SHARE]

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14345582external 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.

Post #155, Apr 28, 2012 22:38:42


5DII x2 | 7D | 17-40L | 35L | Σ 50 | 85L | 135L | 70-200L IS II | Fuji X100

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Old ­ Baldy
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2010
708 posts
South Lyon, MI
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #156, Apr 28, 2012 23:06:34 as a reply to NavyShrink's post 27 minutes earlier.


OB
NEX-5N vs NEX-7external link
NEX-5N compared....external link
Gear list
Flickr Galleryexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
sloanbj's Avatar
Joined Jun 2010
296 posts
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #157, Apr 29, 2012 01:42:02


Flickrexternal 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
Joined Feb 2012
644 posts
Gold Coast, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345174external 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 #14345560external 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.

Post #158, May 02, 2012 00:18:30 as a reply to NavyShrink's post 3 days earlier.


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
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
5,594 posts
Canada, Ontario, Milton
[MORE/SHARE]

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14364603external 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.

Post #159, May 02, 2012 00:55:34


Siteexternal link. Flickrexternal link. DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
Joined May 2011
4,546 posts
Sydney, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

kf095 wrote in post #14364716external 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 ;)

Post #160, May 02, 2012 01:18:04


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
Flickrexternal link | My Images on Getty®‎external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2012
644 posts
Gold Coast, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

kin2son wrote in post #14364774external 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

Post #161, May 06, 2012 06:00:44


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Maxdave
Senior Member
Maxdave's Avatar
Joined Apr 2007
934 posts
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

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 #14310441external 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&API​Comp=4external link
I like interactive blur indexes on SLRGear
17-40external link
16-35 IIexternal 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.

Post #162, May 06, 2012 08:14:26


5D3,1D4,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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Preeb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
2,424 posts
Logan County, CO
[MORE/SHARE]

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14345622external 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.

Post #163, May 06, 2012 08:32:42


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
Joined Mar 2010
1,417 posts
CA
[MORE/SHARE]

Preeb wrote in post #14387373external 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.

Post #164, May 06, 2012 10:30:33




LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Preeb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
2,424 posts
Logan County, CO
[MORE/SHARE]

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14387782external 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.

Post #165, May 06, 2012 12:49:38


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


LIST NEARBY THREADS
13,650 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why so many 17-40s for sale?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00181 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
1084 guests, 816 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is louvig

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.