Canon 17-40L F/2.8-4L

Surprise nobody post this yet. Very interesting.

• 2012.3.1 Release Date
  
• 2010.8.20 filing date

• 39.05mm – f = 17.64 focal length
  
• Fno = 2.64 – 4.10
  
• 28.99 deg – 50.80 half angle of view.
  
• Image height 21.64mm
  
• 136.70mm – 134.67 full-length lens
  
• BF 39.97 – 64.95mm
  
• Lens Construction 12 elements in 9 groups sheet
  
• 4 aspherical surface

• Negative lead type zoom lens of negative-positive
  
• Small and light lens for focusing
  
• Inner focus
  
• Focusing the use (1b in the figure) part of the first lens group
  
• Video support

If you're real interested in gaining that f/2.8, but don't mind losing 5mm at the long end I might be persuaded to sell you a Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD for a reasonable price.

I have no interest in it, personally. I own a 17-40L and this new one will most likely come with a price increase, too. Somewhere between the 16-35 II and the 17-40L. And IMO at that point, you might as well buy the 16-35

The guy that runs Canonrumors has admitted he has no clue about patents, or what they mean. The information he posts about it is basically speculation fodder. Just because there is a patent publication (presumably in Japan) doesn't mean the lens will be produced.

Mark_48 wrote in post #14016263
If you're real interested in gaining that f/2.8, but don't mind losing 5mm at the long end I might be persuaded to sell you a Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD for a reasonable price.

If your Tamron has a RED ring around it then I'm interested.

The price will definitely increase, but it'll still be more affordable then the 16-35 II.

if you look at all the patents that they have reported you'll see that the majority don't become lenses...

Mark_48 wrote in post #14016263
If you're real interested in gaining that f/2.8, but don't mind losing 5mm at the long end I might be persuaded to sell you a Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD for a reasonable price.

Good try sir

Not sure why Canon want to make a new 17-40.
The 16-35 has an extra degree on the short end and 5 less on the long end - truelly, I don't think I ever use the 40mm focal, but could find use for the 16, and even the 15 and 14 focal.
I have the 15mm, and indeed can't be used for everything.
The 14mm is a little too much in price - which makes no sense when I am considering the TS-e 17mm LOL
2.8 is not really of interest for landscape I do, but I would not mind having less color fringe.
With all this in mind, I REALLY would like to see a 14-24(4L?). If one looks at current canon lenses, there is a gap between the 8-14mm and the 24-70. sure the 16-35mm would overlap, but so does the 24-105 and a few others

I have never seen a L series lens with a variable F/stop, much less would I be interested in buying one.

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #14018537
I have never seen a L series lens with a variable F/stop, much less would I be interested in buying one.

I am surprise~!

100-400
70-300
28-300

These are all variable aperture L lens

thestone11 wrote in post #14018789
I am surprise~!

100-400
70-300
28-300

These are all variable aperture L lens

Yep also:
28-80 f/2.8-4L
50-200 f/3.5-4.5L
35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L

I would prefer it if Canon would focus on developing a 14-24mm that could compete with Nikon's amazing lens...it just makes sense to develop a neatly sequential lens range: 14-24mm - 24-70mm - 70-200mm - 200-400mm. Those four lenses, if they were all superb, would cover a vast range without overlaps and would make for a tremendous toolset.

tgara wrote in post #14017500
The guy that runs Canonrumors has admitted he has no clue about patents, or what they mean. The information he posts about it is basically speculation fodder. Just because there is a patent publication (presumably in Japan) doesn't mean the lens will be produced.

That said many people thought the 28mm f/2.8 IS and 24mm f/2.8 IS primes were BS...

Sounds interesting however, Canon really neeeds help with their wide angle lenses

KenjiS wrote in post #14039446
That said many people thought the 28mm f/2.8 IS and 24mm f/2.8 IS primes were BS...

Sounds interesting however, Canon really neeeds help with their wide angle lenses

Clearly, they've got the capability. Just look at the TS-E 17L (same angle of view as a 10mm lens on full-frame, but with a larger image circle) and the TS-E 24L (same angle of view as a 14mm on full-frame, but with a larger image circle, and infinitely better than the 14L II).

David Arbogast wrote in post #14020650
I would prefer it if Canon would focus on developing a 14-24mm that could compete with Nikon's amazing lens...it just makes sense to develop a neatly sequential lens range: 14-24mm - 24-70mm - 70-200mm - 200-400mm. Those four lenses, if they were all superb, would cover a vast range without overlaps and would make for a tremendous toolset.

Agreed. Or, even a 14-40 f/4. Would be be that tough to go from 17mm to 14mm on the wide end?