Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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?

 
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Apr 22, 2012 23:10 |  #31

J.Litton wrote in post #14309226 (external link)
Noticed there have been a ton for sale lately. What's going on?

Maybe there is a newer version - like a Mark II? ;)


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ShootToCapture
Senior Member
403 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Apr 22, 2012 23:30 |  #32

17-40 has same situation like 24-105.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tylerpaulphoto
Senior Member
Avatar
319 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Nor-Cal
     
Apr 23, 2012 02:02 |  #33

everyone got a $800-1000 tax return and want to buy a 16-35mm


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colorblinded
Goldmember
Avatar
2,713 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 689
Joined Jul 2007
     
Apr 23, 2012 02:15 |  #34

Wouldn't dare sell mine! Love it on my 1D Mark II, will love it more when I go full frame.

I guess I don't pay attention though, I haven't seen oodles for sale. I suspect a lot of people had it and may realize it's wider than they need/want after getting a new full frame camera, especially if they never shot "full frame" (film or otherwise) before.


http://www.colorblinde​dphoto.com (external link)
http://www.thecolorbli​ndphotographer.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coldcuts113
Senior Member
Avatar
930 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: NY
     
Apr 23, 2012 09:38 |  #35

For shooting on the wide end at stationary subjects, I like the 17-40. If I needed faster than the 16-35 is a no brainer.

Entry level? Depends how one looks at it.. More like non-IS, or heavy glass equals a cheaper priced L lens.


Nikon D4, Sony RX10, Sony RX100.
Past Gear: (most recently) 5D3, L's, etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tancanon58
Senior Member
Avatar
965 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: southern california
     
Apr 23, 2012 09:50 |  #36

Well, 17-40L is perfect for daylight only (with 5D2) and 16-35 II is double the price and good for wide open in dim light. However, if you got 5D3 which is good enough for 17-40 wide open in dim light I guess.


Bodies: 5D MkIII/ Oly ED-M5/ G10
Lenses: Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC /and some Panny and Oly lenses.
Flash: Canon600EX RT.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,262 posts
Likes: 2948
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Apr 23, 2012 10:03 |  #37

tancanon58 wrote in post #14312836 (external link)
Well, 17-40L is perfect for daylight only (with 5D2) and 16-35 II is double the price and good for wide open in dim light. However, if you got 5D3 which is good enough for 17-40 wide open in dim light I guess.

That's not really true, The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is one stop. A ISO 100 shot taken with the 16-35 would be a ISO 200 shot with the 17-40. A 1/100th exposure at f/2.8 would be 1/50th at f/4. The difference is not that great. In most situations the f/4 will be able to get any shot the f/2.8 will with some adjustment. In some cases where f/2.8 is needed, like an image with narrower DOF, or you really need that extra stop then use thee f/2.8


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cesium
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Apr 23, 2012 10:42 |  #38

It's cheap new and has a red ring. Lots of people buy it as a result. That's pretty much all it comes down to.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
taemo
Goldmember
1,243 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
     
Apr 23, 2012 11:04 |  #39

sold mine to fund some other expenses. plus I already had a 24-105 so I wasn't using the 17-40 at all, maybe 10x since I bought it last summer.
bought a rokinon 14mm f2.8 for landscape instead :D


earldieta.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - tumblr (external link) - gear/feedback
the spirit is willing but the body is sore and squishy
4 digital cameras | 14 film cameras

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,490 posts
Gallery: 256 photos
Best ofs: 12
Likes: 4433
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
     
Apr 23, 2012 11:37 |  #40

tancanon58 wrote in post #14312836 (external link)
Well, 17-40L is perfect for daylight only (with 5D2) and 16-35 II is double the price and good for wide open in dim light. However, if you got 5D3 which is good enough for 17-40 wide open in dim light I guess.

Maybe if you're not using a tripod. Don't assume that your usage requirements are the same as everyone elses. ;) I use my 17-40 a lot at night. Usually on a tripod for landscapes. :cool:
I've always seen the 16-35 as the faster WA zoom for event shooters. People who are usually always fighting a compromise between adequate shutterspeed and iso limitations. If you're going to be shooting buildings, lanscapes and urban scenes at night where you're stopped down and on a tripod, the extra stop doesn't matter, because you're operating at the other end of the aperture spectrum anyway (I'm usually between f/8 and f/16 with my 17-40). However, if there are people involved as the subject, yet the situation is dynamic enough that a single fast prime won't work for you, then the 2.8 zoom is a good compromise. Different horses for different courses. The extra cost of the 16-35 is a byproduct of the extra glass required as well as the extra work needed to make the lens work well at that aperture. If you don't need it why pay for it?


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pkilla
Goldmember
Avatar
2,943 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Boston
     
Apr 23, 2012 11:48 |  #41

Maybe cause is the worse L lens in they line....


T3i griped - rokinon 8mm/rokinon 35 1.4/rokinon 85mm 1.4/
sigma 17-50/nikon 50mm 1.2 ai-s/nikon 28mm ai-s 2.8/
helios 40-2/helios 44-2/mir 1b 37mm 2.8/supertak 135/
trioplan/http://www.flickr.com/​photos/pkilla617/ (external link)
CHECK OUT MY BLOG PICS http://pkilla61.blogsp​ot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
whmeltonjr
Goldmember
Avatar
1,363 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Houston
     
Apr 23, 2012 11:49 |  #42

pkilla wrote in post #14313403 (external link)
Maybe cause is the worse L lens in they line....

Lol really?


William | Fuji X-E1 | Fuji X100S | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,402 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
Apr 23, 2012 11:53 |  #43

pkilla wrote in post #14313403 (external link)
Maybe cause is the worse L lens in they line....

What makes it the worse L lens?


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marco2011
Member
139 posts
Joined Dec 2011
     
Apr 23, 2012 13:05 |  #44

scorpio_e wrote in post #14313433 (external link)
What makes it the worse L lens?

I believe that he doesn't even know what he is talking about, and he landed for this forum by a mistake and replied just bcoz he landed :D


Eos 550D Gripped :D Canon Speedlite 430ex ii :D Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM :D Canon 18-55mm kit lens :(

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ljason8eg
Senior Member
478 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Elk Grove, California
     
Apr 23, 2012 13:07 |  #45

I wouldn't take anything pkilla says seriously...


Jason
Gear: 1D Mark III | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | 24-105 f/4L IS | 70-200 f/2.8L | Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 | 580 EX II |

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

24,032 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?
Register to forums
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 DudeInIndy
725 guests, 239 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.