Why so many 17-40s for sale?

tats wrote in post #14325404
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.

I fully understand that. I am talking about people using the term as a knock. And the only reason I am commenting at all is so that beginners don't read that the 17-40L is an entry level L lens and expect it to be crap.

But I don't think anyone would call the 5D Mark II an entry level full frame, thus kinda proving my point.

My entry level 17-85 IS is a real sharp copy and can match a low level L

Littlefield wrote in post #14326180
My entry level 17 -85 IS is a real sharp copy and can match a low level L

Keep telling yourself that....

tkbslc wrote in post #14326249
Keep telling yourself that....

Oh, it can in sharpness and for color I boost with LR vibrancy
It is a good one like this and got it as kit but I do not think it is better then the L .
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/image/533103​26

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.

I don't understand why people get so hung up on price. Let's put it this way: if I had both the 17-40 and the 16-35 sitting on a shelf and needed to pack one to go out and do my landscape work, I would reach for the 17-40 every time. The 16-35 weighs a third of a pound more, takes up more room in the backpack, and requires 82mm filters; for my landscape needs, it would make no sense whatsoever to pack that one instead of the 17-40.

Now, if I were going out to shoot an event in low light, then the situation would be reversed. And if I needed a wider aperture to freeze the movement of stars in a landscape, then I would probably want to pack a fast UWA prime.

There is no one "best" lens; there is only the best lens for a given purpose.

bought it , used it , love it , keeping it

To answer the original question, probably because there are lots of them out there. In the same way that there are very few 800 5.6s for sale because there are almost none around.

To join in the debate about the lens IMHO it is a great landscape lens but obviously not that great as a low light lens. It would not be an issue for me to get a 16 35 but for my interests there is no point as I have other lenses that are much better for the odd occasion that I want to shoot in low light. When being used as a landscape lens stopped down there is no real difference in IQ. If you want to see sharp corners then neither of these 2 are any good.

You can't compare lenses with different specs and decide which is best. You can only compare eggs with eggs and apples with apples. If you compare apples with bananas there will always be people who prefer bananas even if they are more expensive than apples and other people who could easily afford bananas but prefer the taste of apples.

I prefer the taste of apples

big_g wrote in post #14328615
.. there will always be people who prefer bananas even if they are more expensive than apples and other people who could easily afford bananas but prefer the taste of apples.

I prefer the taste of apples

Bananas for me

They are certainly expensive in Australia since the floods!

WOW, I learned something tonight. Been in photography for many years and never knew there were "entry level" Canon "L" lenses. Thanks for the very "accurate" info.

alann wrote in post #14330147
WOW, I learned something tonight. Been in photography for many years and never knew there were "entry level" Canon "L" lenses. Thanks for the very "accurate" info.

It is funny, isn't it? "Entry-level 'L' Lens" is pretty much the textbook definition of an oxymoron.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #14309728
Do you take them at F2.8?

No. 16mm.

17mm isn't wide enough to call uwa by my standards. 16mm is barely over that line.

2.8 doesn't matter much, but is nice for night landscapes.

My 16-35 is also sharper corner to corner even at f11. Also less distortion.

Just personal preference.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14330529
My 16-35 is also sharper corner to corner even at f11. Also less distortion.

Just personal preference.

Well, then your assessment flies in the face of just about every formal review that has been published. For example, here are the blur index charts for full-frame at slrgear (pinker colors are better, blue is worse; corners of the rectangles are corners of the frame):

16-35 on the left and 17-40 on the right, all at f/8...

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Phrasikleia wrote in post #14330651
Well, then your assessment flies in the face of just about every formal review that has been published. For example, here are the blur index charts for full-frame at slrgear (pinker colors are better, blue is worse; corners of the rectangles are corners of the frame):

16-35 on the left and 17-40 on the right, all at f/8...

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

They're both great lenses that suit different needs, and in some cases the cheaper lens is actually better.

Those charts clearly show the 17-40 sharper at 16mm.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14330836
Those charts clearly show the 17-40 sharper at 16mm.

Got one of those 30 inch 4k monitors? I want one of those.

Wish i could afford one of these "entry level" lenses...