Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 17 Oct 2014 (Friday) 10:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Didn't realize how big the 16-35 and 17-40 are!!

 
davidmtml
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 390
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Montana
     
Oct 17, 2014 10:27 |  #1

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/45Pc4vB.png?1
IMAGE LINK: http://imgur.com/45Pc4​vB  (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
outmywindow
Senior Member
Avatar
672 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
     
Oct 17, 2014 10:55 |  #2

:rolleyes: Amazon has never been particularly good when it comes to listing correct specifications on a lot of items over the years. :lol:


Just a soul with a camera

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 262
Joined Jun 2014
     
Oct 17, 2014 11:10 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

I have a 17-40. It is a bit bigger than the 10-22 I moved up from. Pretty sure it isn't quite 97 inches long, though. I'll get back to you.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sirquack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,599 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 937
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
     
Oct 17, 2014 12:13 |  #4

I just checked my 17-40 and it is just a touch shy of the 97 inches reported above. Something like 90+ inches shy. But who is counting.


Name is Ron.
Bodies - 6D/5D3/7D2-Gripped
Lenses - Canon 17-40 F4/24-70 F2.8 II/85 F1.8/Canon 70-200 F2.8 II/F4/Sigma 30 DC/Tamron 150-600
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
l89kip
Senior Member
584 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2010
     
Oct 17, 2014 13:14 |  #5

97 inches?


Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carpenter
Goldmember
2,631 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 461
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Green Bay, WI
     
Oct 17, 2014 13:18 |  #6

Same scale I use when I talk to the ladies!


5D Mk IV | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII | 100-400L MkII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidmtml
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 390
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Montana
     
Oct 17, 2014 13:30 |  #7

carpenter wrote in post #17218359 (external link)
Same scale I use when I talk to the ladies!

bw!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
l89kip
Senior Member
584 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2010
     
Oct 17, 2014 13:35 |  #8

Lucky ladies ...


Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sirquack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,599 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 937
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
     
Oct 17, 2014 14:48 |  #9

The only issue is at 84 X 97 inches, the ladies would probably not be able to deal with it anyway.


Name is Ron.
Bodies - 6D/5D3/7D2-Gripped
Lenses - Canon 17-40 F4/24-70 F2.8 II/85 F1.8/Canon 70-200 F2.8 II/F4/Sigma 30 DC/Tamron 150-600
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Oct 17, 2014 19:34 |  #10

l89kip wrote in post #17218393 (external link)
Lucky ladies ...

until the rude awakening that it's actually 97 mm :D


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
Oct 17, 2014 20:21 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

Alright, ladies, which one do you prefer?

IMAGE: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmsjut4msb5v873/75106fe6eeb7463ea38dc27069a40983~01.jpg?raw=1



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,352 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1028
Joined May 2013
     
Oct 17, 2014 20:46 |  #12

Big? I find my 16-35 2.8 small and light compared to bricks like the 50L, 24TSEii or 70-300L


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Oct 17, 2014 20:47 |  #13

davidfarina wrote in post #17218929 (external link)
Big? I find my 16-35 2.8 small and light compared to bricks like the 50L, 24TSEii or 70-300L

look at the units of measure on the lenses. hint: it isn't correct


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1136
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Oct 17, 2014 22:29 as a reply to  @ timbop's post |  #14

I must be stupid or something, but how do you get 3 measurements for something basically cylindrical?

Also I though the 6.0x6.0x6.0 amusing. The others could be a decimal place error, but the 16-25 f4 is definitely not square (or a cube).


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,993 views & 0 likes for this thread, 10 members have posted to it.
Didn't realize how big the 16-35 and 17-40 are!!
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1497 guests, 138 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.