Why so many 17-40s for sale?

mrbubbles wrote in post #14319185
17-40 on FF is quite amazing I must say...

Indeed. I wouldn't recommend the lens to crop body users, there are better lenses out there for the range you get covered here.

coolhotwaves wrote in post #14321176
Indeed. I wouldn't recommend the lens to crop body users, there are better lenses out there for the range you get covered here.

It's a wonderful lens on crop too, I was sooo happy with it on 20D and 7D.
And it's not a slouch on 5DMKIII either, except it's UWA now instead of normal zoom on APS-C.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14317416
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

Nice shots but unless PhotoME is wrong the second and third are taken at 2.8

gjl711 wrote in post #14309746
I'm not sure I fully agree. The 16-35 is f/2.8 and the 17-40 a f/4 and the price reflects it. IQ wise they are practically identical. If you need f/2.8 the 16-35 is the way to go but many of us are looking for a medium wide lend for landscapes and such so were shooting f/8 or maybe even f/11 and don't need the extra aperture.

I think once you get into L territory, and even the high end EF-S lenses, you are paying for the glass.

This, I'm sorry but I spent a lot of time researching between the Canon 17-40mm and the Canon 16-35mm and found the image quality to be basically the same, if you need the 2.8 then obviously get the Canon 16-35mm, however most people use either of these lens for landscapes where 2.8 would rarely ever be used.

Now, I've been tempted to sell mine, even though I've only just bought it but that's only because I would like to fund a Canon TS-E 24mm.

You guys are making this too hard. It's a popular lens. There are a ton of them out there. People trade up and out all the time. It doesn't mean anything. There's always a lot of 85mm f1.8 and 70-200's of every variety for sale, too. Those are great lenses.

Holy **** pkilla, try some punctuation..

was curious why and i do think its an entry L. i want the 24-105 and 10-22 so no need for the 17-40 as my 50 comes in handy too. this is a great thread

Also, why does cheaper price mean entry level L lens?

oweneck wrote in post #14324536
Also, why does cheaper price mean entry level L lens?

It isn't an "entry level" L lens.It's a great sharp lens that many landscape photogs use with full frame cameras.

Littlefield wrote in post #14324364
Nice shots but unless PhotoME is wrong the second and third are taken at 2.8

Well that was a bit silly of me to assume they were all taken with the 17-40. It seems the first and last were, and not number 2&3.

Funnily enough 1 & 4 were my favorites by far!

I sold my 24-70L and kept the 17-40L, which is my primary landscape lens on my FF. I've rented the 16-35L, but used it outside so never really saw what it could do at 2.8. With that said, if I was an indoor event shooter, I'd probably switch to the 16-35L for the extra stop...but for now, I love my 17-40L and have no intention of selling it.

bikeboynate wrote in post #14324578
It isn't an "entry level" L lens.It's a great sharp lens that many landscape photogs use with full frame cameras.

Then why the hell is it the cheap UWA zoom? You got the 16-35 which is the top dog and the 17-40 is the cheaper "L"... sheesh. No different then the F4 70-200s they are the entry while the extremely expensive 2.8 versions are the top dog.

Talley wrote in post #14325317
Then why the hell is it the cheap UWA zoom? You got the 16-35 which is the top dog and the 17-40 is the cheaper "L"... sheesh. No different then the F4 70-200s they are the entry while the extremely expensive 2.8 versions are the top dog.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14317416
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.

Again, the 17-40L isn't an entry level L lens and neither is the 70-200 f/4.0L.

Seriously. You wouldn't call the 5D Mark II an entry level enthusiast camera because it is cheaper than the 5D Mark III, would you

/debate

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14325355
Again, the 17-40L isn't an entry level L lens and neither is the 70-200 f/4.0L.

Seriously. You wouldn't call the 5D Mark II an entry level enthusiast camera because it is cheaper than the 5D Mark III, would you

/debate

You might call it an entry level full frame camera

People are using it two ways - one group is trying to use it as a knock, trying to say its bad and using its low price as an indicator. The other group is saying that given the options that cover that range, since it is the cheapest (and one of the cheaper L lenses) it is something that people get first.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14325355
Seriously. You wouldn't call the 5D Mark II an entry level enthusiast camera because it is cheaper than the 5D Mark III, would you

/debate

Yes I would. I don't have the $ for any of the high dollar stuff so for me to enter the full frame market the 5DC and the mkII would be entry level FF cameras. I think this website has alot of people with alot of money that spend alot more than me so their view point is different. It's an entry level because it's an affordable L lens... that takes nothing away from it's performance. I really want the 17-40 but not as a crop lens but when I go FF as an UWA.

I cannot afford and will never spend the amount of money that the 16-35 costs when I can pick up the 17-40 much cheaper. Again, it's performance rocks but simply from a cost perspective it's to ME an entry level (affordable to most)