Why so many 17-40s for sale?

I think many of you who are struggling with the concept of the 16-35 vs the 17-40 are thinking of these lenses as solely F8 landscape lenses which they certainly aren't to many of us.

And to whoever it was, laughing about shooting a 16-35 @ 2.8 for landscapes: why? I shoot night landscapes at 2.8 all the time.

The 16-35 is one helluva night time lens and has a lot of advantages over the 17-40(which is a great lens in its own right). Maybe you don't see the advantages or can't understand the need, but many others do, so don't be so shortsighted.

They are all good!!! They are L's so they are the be it, end all of lenses....:

Glueeater wrote in post #14317038
On a more serious note, does anyone use this thing for events at all? I'm talking low light wedding or stage performances. I'm contemplating picking one up soon with the intention of using it at events or for interactive portraits.

Glueeater,

Check out the 5D Mark III thread. Elrey starts posting these stage photos taken with the 17-40mm. Look at this page and he posts a bunch more over the next 10 pages or so. Amazing work. Anyone who says this is an entry level L lens is mis-informed. Being cheaper doesn't make it an entry level lens. It makes it cheaper. It is a special purpose lens and it serves that purpose very well. Look at it another way, if the lens was priced at $1000 would you be calling it entry level? I wouldn't even be calling it over priced.

Pkilla even you commented on how good these pics are in that thread!

https://photography-on-the.net …ad.php?t=116154​2&page=272

elrey2375 wrote in post #14306810

1920 x 1026

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: http://img4.imageshack​.us/img4/6794/g57c0552​.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND

Mine never wowed me on the 7D.
But I'll keep it for the day I go FF.

To the OP's question, I think 17-40's are typically very available, but since I'm not in the market Im not sure if there are more out there than usual. But the real answer is probably that their relative lower cost makes them a lens that is easily bought and sold. I'm still thinking that any increase may be due to people buying a 5d3 kit and freeing up some cash since it overlaps with the 24-105.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #14315599
This is an impossible question to answer definitively because there is no absolute 'best' or 'worst' lens; there is only the best or worst lens for a given purpose.

For my landscape needs, for example, the 17-40 is the best available Canon wide-angle lens. It hits the sweet spot of focal length range, portability, compactness, filter thread size, and quality of optics. Canon currently makes no other lens that I would want to take its place in my bag.

For anyone doubting the 17-40, take a look at Phrasikliea's shots in the 2011 and 2012 landscape threads. They're mind blowing.

17-40 on FF is quite amazing I must say...

I'm actually thinking of buying one, as my Sigma 17-70mm doesn't work on the 5D...

Thanks Matt! Looking to pick one of these up right now… lol.

Glueeater wrote in post #14319232
Thanks Matt! Looking to pick one of these up right now… lol.

No worries, Elreys stage work is so good!

I'm also looking for one

I assume there is alot of 17-40 sales from people needing funds to upgrade (mostly 5DIII). Plus, the 17-40 seems to have overlap with a few other L lenses.

I think the real question is why aren't the rest of us cashing in on all these used cheap 17-40 lenses?!?!

Because no one will post to Australia!

I had a 17-40L on a 5D2 for months, but almost never used it on the wide end. And when I did, I'd have tons of distortion at the corners.

The lens just didn't come close to the color punch and sharpness that primes gave me (mainly my 35L)

Flare resistance and AF were amazing, though.

I won't be going back to a UWA until I can afford a TSE lens.

I also think the other thing that will hurt the sales of the 17-40 and 16-35 is the 24-70 II, especially if it's basically a wider version of the 70-200 II with amazing IQ

ZachOly wrote in post #14319666
I also think the other thing that will hurt the sales of the 17-40 and 16-35 is the 24-70 II, especially if it's basically a wider version of the 70-200 II with amazing IQ

If you need UWA, you need UWA, there is a ginormous FOV difference between 17 and 24mm. I don't think sales of 17-40L are hurt in any way, more people can afford it which makes market a bit saturated.
Plus comparing to general walk about 24-70/24-105, UWA is a specialty lens for a limited set of applications.
But I believe these days 24-105 takes the lead as for sale champion, I personally didn't see that many 17-40L there, check for sale section.

I would say there are a lot more 24-105 for sale than 17-40. They are bought as part of a kit and then being resold to help defray the cost of the camera purchase.