Why so many 17-40s for sale?

The 17-40L is not a bad lens once you stop it down to F8 and use it for tripod based landscape shots, which is what it is really made for.

probably lots for sale because there are lots of them out there.

So since I do mainly landscapes with my 17-40, you guys are saying I am better off selling it and getting a 10-22 ?

J.Litton wrote in post #14332844
So since I do mainly landscapes with my 17-40, you guys are saying I am better off selling it and getting a 10-22 ?

Only if you need UWA focal lengths. I use everything from ultra-wide to telephoto for landscapes, but I do find that the 'normal' range (which you get with the 17-40 on a 7D) is the one I use the least.

J.Litton wrote in post #14332844
So since I do mainly landscapes with my 17-40, you guys are saying I am better off selling it and getting a 10-22 ?

Do you plan on going full frame anytime soon? Do you use 22-40mm often or have a lens that covers it? Do you use it in very bad weather? Is the variable aperture a problem (very unlikely)

Chances are the Canon 10-22mm will be a better landscape lens on your camera. That's what I would be doing!

I only really do two types of photography, wildlife and sunrises and sunsets and panoramics.

J.Litton wrote in post #14332998
I only really do two types of photography, wildlife and sunrises and sunsets and panoramics.

Well, we can't tell you whether or not you need the 10-22mm. That's something only you can answer. If you find that you're unable to get wide enough to achieve certain compositions, then you'll probably want to get an UWA lens. Ultra-wide is a somewhat different style of photography; it puts a lot of emphasis on the foreground and works well with compositions that are particularly 'expansive' (lots of depth from foreground to background and lots of side-to-side interest as well. Longer focal lengths work better with more layered/compressed compositions.

Just by the number of responses to this thread you can tell how popular and widely used this lens is.

Tonyz wrote in post #14332126
The 17-40L is not a bad lens once you stop it down to F8 and use it for tripod based landscape shots, which is what it is really made for.

Works just fine handheld, and not stopped down.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Scatterbrained wrote in post #14336197
Works just fine handheld, and not stopped down.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

1975 Lola T360 #HU-9 by tltichy, on Flickr

Nice shot.

Is that vignette straight out of camera?

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14336368
Nice shot.

Is that vignette straight out of camera?

While there is an ever so subtle vignette SOOC, I added about -8 in LR to this image. Of course, I had a CPL on the lens too which will darken the corners ever so slightly wide open, but you really have to be looking for it.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #14336749
While there is an ever so subtle vignette SOOC, I added about -8 in LR to this image. Of course, I had a CPL on the lens too which will darken the corners ever so slightly wide open, but you really have to be looking for it.

Thanks

Heres how I mainly use mine

Probably because its a lens with a very clear upgrade path and its a L lens that covers the standard range on APS-C where its not exactly ideal. FWIW I see far more 24-105's for sale on the local CL.

This thread just has me wondering if I am not better off selling the 17-40 and getting the 10-22 and a 24-105. Then with my 100-400 and 500mm, I have all focal ranges covered