17-40 vr 2 coming.

BEEEsH · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.

Mike55 · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEEEsH

Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.

Any word on price?

felix21685 · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

i'm also interested in price...

but seems like its 500 bucks for IS so 1100 is probably a good estimate.

I don't know i think i'd still get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Livinthalife · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

I agree, Why wouldn't they just make it a 2.8 as well, or perhaps make the 16-35 2.8 IS?

BEEEsH · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livinthalife

I agree, Why wouldn't they just make it a 2.8 as well, or perhaps make the 16-35 2.8 IS?

They just re-did the 16-35, it would be a colossal waste of money for them to re-do it again. I didn't ask about the price.It'll probably cost 150$ more than the non IS version.

gregster · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

JohnnyG · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregster

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

Why not? IS always helps. I love it on my 17-55 and it enables me to get shots at much lower shutter speeds than without. If I owned Canon I would put IS on ALL LENSES particularly since they have a much cheaper way to do it now.

JohnnyG · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEEEsH

They just re-did the 16-35, it would be a colossal waste of money for them to re-do it again. I didn't ask about the price.It'll probably cost 150$ more than the non IS version.

Biggest screw-up in my opinion was making the 16-35 without IS! Wow! Such fine optics without IS!

S.Horton · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregster

Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens?

Beat me to it........

Tom W · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyG

Biggest screw-up in my opinion was making the 16-35 without IS! Wow! Such fine optics without IS!

Not a screwup at all - the 16-35 II is a very fine lens. I'm not certain that an IS version would share the same optical capability. There are some who think that the original 300 f/4L without IS is sharper than the newer version with IS.

The one thing I do know is that IS is far more useful on a long lens than it is on a short lens. That's not to say that it can't be useful on an ultrawide like the 16-35 - it's just to say that it serves a far greater purpose on long lenses where your shake is magnified.

MrChad · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

One thing to keep in mind is that every Canon lens with IS is longer the a 70mm equiv. focal length. The 17-55mm IS is actually a 27-88mm in 35mm terms.

The instruction for the 17-55mm EFS even say to calculate stops of improvement via:
1/(focal length x 1.6).

So in true 35mm terms the shortest lens with IS in the Canon line-up would likely be the 24-105mm IS, which again is a lens with a focal length longer then 70mm at some point.

A new 17-40mmL with IS would be the shortest IS lens by a huge order of magnitude. It would be the first lens ever without an effective 70mm focal length especially given the fact that his lens's intent would likely be for FF and not EFS.

If someone told me the 17-40L was being redone to use an 82mm front element for better corners on FF digital I might believe that. But the inclusion of IS is a head scratcher.

FlyingPhotog · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

It has to be coming out soon simply because I JUST BOUGHT a 17-40 f/4L

*Sigh*

JohnnyG · 16th of January 2008 (Wed)

All of this theory, a few facts sprinkled here and there and a lot of opinion is all well and good and means a great deal but.....

The market is going IS and that's that! All of the manufactures are either already using it or will be very shortly. It's a buzz word, like live view, that is happening all over the place.

Why do you think Canon brought out the 18-55 IS and selling it for $175.00? Unheard of a year ago. Canon said something like they just discovered a cheaper way to make IS. Yeah right!

They had that technology for probably years just waiting for the market to catch up which it is so now they "discover" that "new" technology!

Canon has been making bundles on IS, charging an average of $500.00 more for each lens with it. Now, the tide shifts and you're going to start seeing much cheaper prices for IS and on lens shorter than the 70mm mentioned earlier. Why wouldn't they? If they don't, the competition will and eat them alive! You have to have IS now and that's that!
I'm sure they'll get away with not having it on some L lenses as they're made for the "pros" but I'm sure you'll be seeing it on most new lenses!

Also, start looking for IS in Canon bodies, it's not far away I'm sure!

The photography world is changing fast and only the companies that change will be left and I'm sure Canon will be one of those and on top of the heap as usual. They're not stupid for sure. They make stupid mistakes occasionally like the Mark III but they're fixing that one well. They'll make others because as I was taught years ago.... "You're not doing anything at all if you're not making mistakes!!" and Canon is doing a lot!

danielyamseng · 17th of January 2008 (Thu)

17-40 is a slower brother of 16-35mm. if IS is there, I guess 16-35mm f2.8 would have IS as well

amoergosum · 17th of January 2008 (Thu)

There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35.

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#1
BEEEsH Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 638 IMAGE EDITING OK	17-40 vr 2 coming. Can't say who informed me, but its in the works. optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS. __________________ EOS 5D w/BG-E4 16-35mm F2.8L II - 24-70mm F2.8L - 50mm F1.4 - 85mm F1.2L II - 70-300 IS - 580EX II - MANFROTTO 055D w/RC 141 - DOMKE F3X - Nanuk 940 White Last edited by BEEEsH : 16th of January 2008 (Wed) at 00:07.

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#3
felix21685 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,337 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. i'm also interested in price... but seems like its 500 bucks for IS so 1100 is probably a good estimate. I don't know i think i'd still get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM __________________ -Felix --------------------------------- Rebel XT, BG-E3 Grip, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 430EX, AT858 http://www.f1domains.com

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#4
Livinthalife Cream of the Crop Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Austin,TX Posts: 5,054 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. I agree, Why wouldn't they just make it a 2.8 as well, or perhaps make the 16-35 2.8 IS? __________________ -Andy- Canon 7D EF-S 10-22 EF 85 1.8 24-105 F4 IS L Sigma 30 1.4 580EX ...:::My Website:::...

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#6
gregster Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 372	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. Why on earth would you want IS in such a short lens? __________________ 1DIV 7D 5D2 \| 24-105 - 70-200/4IS - 100 macro - 300 2.8 IS - 800 IS - Gitzo 5541LS + WHII - 1.4x + 2x - 580EXII Gallery

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#11
MrChad Goldmember Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 2,741	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. One thing to keep in mind is that every Canon lens with IS is longer the a 70mm equiv. focal length. The 17-55mm IS is actually a 27-88mm in 35mm terms. The instruction for the 17-55mm EFS even say to calculate stops of improvement via: 1/(focal length x 1.6). So in true 35mm terms the shortest lens with IS in the Canon line-up would likely be the 24-105mm IS, which again is a lens with a focal length longer then 70mm at some point. A new 17-40mmL with IS would be the shortest IS lens by a huge order of magnitude. It would be the first lens ever without an effective 70mm focal length especially given the fact that his lens's intent would likely be for FF and not EFS. If someone told me the 17-40L was being redone to use an 82mm front element for better corners on FF digital I might believe that. But the inclusion of IS is a head scratcher. __________________ I kaNt sPeL DaMmit... wARniNG! gRaMMuR bEtTer ThAn PhOtoS. [Gear List]

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#12
FlyingPhotog Cream of the "Prop" Join Date: May 2007 Location: Location: Location! Posts: 33,284 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. It has to be coming out soon simply because I JUST BOUGHT a 17-40 f/4L Sigh __________________ Jay Galleries ... Hey Look! A Blog!

16th of January 2008 (Wed)	#13
JohnnyG Worthless twinkle toes fairy Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 3,710 IMAGE EDITING OK	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. All of this theory, a few facts sprinkled here and there and a lot of opinion is all well and good and means a great deal but..... The market is going IS and that's that! All of the manufactures are either already using it or will be very shortly. It's a buzz word, like live view, that is happening all over the place. Why do you think Canon brought out the 18-55 IS and selling it for $175.00? Unheard of a year ago. Canon said something like they just discovered a cheaper way to make IS. Yeah right! They had that technology for probably years just waiting for the market to catch up which it is so now they "discover" that "new" technology! Canon has been making bundles on IS, charging an average of $500.00 more for each lens with it. Now, the tide shifts and you're going to start seeing much cheaper prices for IS and on lens shorter than the 70mm mentioned earlier. Why wouldn't they? If they don't, the competition will and eat them alive! You have to have IS now and that's that! I'm sure they'll get away with not having it on some L lenses as they're made for the "pros" but I'm sure you'll be seeing it on most new lenses! Also, start looking for IS in Canon bodies, it's not far away I'm sure! The photography world is changing fast and only the companies that change will be left and I'm sure Canon will be one of those and on top of the heap as usual. They're not stupid for sure. They make stupid mistakes occasionally like the Mark III but they're fixing that one well. They'll make others because as I was taught years ago.... "You're not doing anything at all if you're not making mistakes!!" and Canon is doing a lot! __________________ Canon EOS 5D Mark II, 100-400IS L, 24-105 L IS, 50mm f/1.4, Canon 430EX/580EX II, Kenko 1.5X, Epson R1900, Manfrotto 679B Monopod, 3021BPRO tripod, 808RC4 Head, 486RC2 Ballhead Tripod Head for Sale 808RC4

17th of January 2008 (Thu)	#14
danielyamseng Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,878	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. 17-40 is a slower brother of 16-35mm. if IS is there, I guess 16-35mm f2.8 would have IS as well

17th of January 2008 (Thu)	#15
amoergosum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 779	Re: 17-40 vr 2 coming. There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35. __________________ Gear: Canon 5D MKII - Canon 5D - 16-35LII - 24-105L IS - 70-200/2.8L IS - 85/1.8 - Speedlite 580EXII - Sunpak 120J - My maritime portfolio: http://www.benscheurer.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Coming out	coach51	Macro	2	23rd of August 2007 (Thu) 16:03
Coming and Going	hTr	Birds	6	16th of June 2007 (Sat) 05:21
In coming!!!	Kiddo	Wildlife	2	31st of May 2007 (Thu) 12:37
No, I ain't coming down, you come up if you can !	PetKal	Wildlife	12	25th of November 2005 (Fri) 20:40
Going in...or coming out?	Benuch	People	4	14th of April 2005 (Thu) 18:25