17-40 vr 2 coming.

amoergosum wrote in post #4722358
There's no need for IS on either the 17-40 or the 16-35.

Of course there is. Being able to stop down to f/8 to take a scenic picture without the use of a tripod!! I'd buy it. Of course the tripod is better, but there are times when it's not practical to lug it around.

IS won't be added to the 17-40. 1/focal length... you can handhold a 17mm image pretty darn well without IS. Most IS lenses get you down to 1/15th, if you honestly need to 1second exposures...you are probably using a tripod. It's getting silly at that point.

Talking to a Canon Pro Service rep, the entire wide-angle line has been in review due to the full-frames. 14mm was released and is phenomenal. Just insane view on a full frame. The 16-35 was released with the 82mm front thread. This saved the lens IMO. When compared to the prior 16-35 or the 17-40, you can understand why they did this. The 24mm tilt-shift is on its way, much improved. I feel the 17-40 will be released with an 82mm thread as well. I've tried the entire lineup thats available now back to back and compared images on full frame. The 14 is clearly the best, and the 16-35 finally has bright corners. The 17 has major falloff at 17 in comparison. Within the next 2 years we should be seeing some much improved wide angles being released.

Interesting indeed. This is the first I've heard with regards to a real legitimate need for refreshing the 17-40L.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, if they make the 17-40L 82mm, I highly doubt it will be the diamond in the rough anymore with regards to price.

John_TX wrote in post #4799977
Interesting indeed. This is the first I've heard with regards to a real legitimate need for refreshing the 17-40L.
Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, if they make the 17-40L 82mm, I highly doubt it will be the diamond in the rough anymore with regards to price.

I would agree, much higher then $650 it sells for now you have to figure EFS users buying this lens will just commit to the 17-55mm.

I really could give two hoots about the corners on the 5D, from my past use you can fix most wide open issues with a RAW converter in 1 slider swing for the corners. Just leave the lens as is, the 77mm filters make L sharing easy and if you need perfect corners that bad just buy the better 16-35mm IMO.

BEEEsH wrote in post #4713069
Can't say who informed me, but its in the works.

optimized 17-40 F4 + new IS.

no way dude. the 24-70L would be equipped with IS waaaay before an UWA zoom f4 zoom.

ed rader

My guess:

New 24-70 along with the new 5D.


Espen

EspenW wrote in post #4835191
My guess:

New 24-70 along with the new 5D.


Espen

I reckon that might not be too far off... a new one with 82mm filter threads, perhaps?

IS alone would not attract me to buy a revised 17-40mm.

However if it gave better image quality than the original 17-40mm then I would buy it immediately as this is the lens I use the most.

An 82mm thread would make me think twice though, that would represent a further investment in replacement filters.

John.

John Hudson wrote in post #4855065
IS alone would not attract me to buy a revised 17-40mm.

However if it gave better image quality than the original 17-40mm then I would buy it immediately as this is the lens I use the most.

An 82mm thread would make me think twice though, that would represent a further investment in replacement filters.

John.

IS on the 17-40 would prompt me to buy one. My wife has one and it's a good lens but I think it needs IS to complete. A larger filter size would be fine as I don't use filters anyway. 2.8 would also be nice but that would probably make it too expensive but not sure???

I would also love to see a 24-70 with IS even more. That is a fine lens already and would only get better with IS.

Another lens update would be an "L" 17-55. It's an excellent lens and updating and making it EF class would be wonderful too! I had one and it was my favorite lens but sold it because of wanting to get a 5D. Probably a mistake on my part as I look back at the photos it produced.

I expect we'll start seeing more and more IS in Canon's lenses at a much lower premium. IS on all lenses in the future will probably happen I would imagine and think it should, even the WA's. Why not if it doesn't cost much more???

Why canon reproduce their old lenses for better performance later? why can't they just produce new lenses and finish, not so interested to remake old lenses with different features, like 2.8 to 2, xx-xxxmm MKI to MKII, i wish if they produce a lens of 10-50mm, EF15-70 IS or f2, 70-400 f2.8 [mix between 70-200/70-300 and 100-400].

Tareq wrote in post #4855173
Why canon reproduce their old lenses for better performance later? why can't they just produce new lenses and finish, not so interested to remake old lenses with different features, like 2.8 to 2, xx-xxxmm MKI to MKII, i wish if they produce a lens of 10-50mm, EF15-70 IS or f2, 70-400 f2.8 [mix between 70-200/70-300 and 100-400].

I'd be all over a EF 15-70L! (24-112 in 35mm eq.)
For just about every major lens, except the 24-105L, canon has a comparable 1.6x crop version. A EF 15-70L would be a perfect lens for 40D users, as well as enticing 400/450D users into the L fever as well.

And to those of you who say we've already got the EF-S 17-55, there is significant difference between 24mm & 27.2mm on the wide end.

I currently don't have anything below 28mm at the moment and regularly find myself yearning for the 24mm width I got back in the film days.

While the EF-S 10-22mm is an option on crop cameras, I feel it's more of a special purpose lens with somewhat limited use. Although the 10-22 thread obviously proves that wrong!

You cannot stack filters on a 17mm lens anyways. You will get uncorrectable vignette. Its not lightfall off anymore...its the filter threading. An 82mm thread allows a larger filter that allows full corner light. If you start stacking...you might get away with an extra filter or two. 2 filters on a 77mm thread is already enough to see the filter barrel on anything less than 24mm.

Some one serious about wide-angle that needs multiple filter use is probably going to be using 4x6 rectangular filters anyways. You have room to adjust and move them around and still not have edge problems. It just comes to a point where some things aren't practical in use.

A 17-40 has a pretty wide hood to begin with. If its increased filter size is 82 after an upgrade, then you could probably add a step back down to 77 even with the hood on. You could leave this on and use a 77mm cap as well if you really wanted.

John_TX wrote in post #4855559
I'd be all over a EF 15-70L! (24-112 in 35mm eq.)
For just about every major lens, except the 24-105L, canon has a comparable 1.6x crop version. A EF 15-70L would be a perfect lens for 40D users, as well as enticing 400/450D users into the L fever as well.

And to those of you who say we've already got the EF-S 17-55, there is significant difference between 24mm & 27.2mm on the wide end.

I currently don't have anything below 28mm at the moment and regularly find myself yearning for the 24mm width I got back in the film days.

While the EF-S 10-22mm is an option on crop cameras, I feel it's more of a special purpose lens with somewhat limited use. Although the 10-22 thread obviously proves that wrong!

Exactly my points, i have cropped and full frame bodies with different glasses so i know what i want now, so that i posted about those my futuristic lenses, i don't think that 17mm on crop body is sufficient, and i find myself to change between lenses if i go from wide to standard to telephoto and i regret that i don't have 2.8 or no IS and so.

Blue S2 wrote in post #4855707
You cannot stack filters on a 17mm lens anyways. You will get uncorrectable vignette. Its not lightfall off anymore...its the filter threading. An 82mm thread allows a larger filter that allows full corner light. If you start stacking...you might get away with an extra filter or two. 2 filters on a 77mm thread is already enough to see the filter barrel on anything less than 24mm.

Some one serious about wide-angle that needs multiple filter use is probably going to be using 4x6 rectangular filters anyways. You have room to adjust and move them around and still not have edge problems. It just comes to a point where some things aren't practical in use.

A 17-40 has a pretty wide hood to begin with. If its increased filter size is 82 after an upgrade, then you could probably add a step back down to 77 even with the hood on. You could leave this on and use a 77mm cap as well if you really wanted.

i got too many problems of vignetting on my 77mm UWA/WA lenses whether on crop body or full frame using my P-series filters, so i went with 4x5 [or 4x4] filters to eliminate or reduce vignetting as much as possible below 20mm.

IS would be nice on the shorter lens for low light use but it's not needed in bright daylight.