# 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????



## WPJ (May 8, 2013)

So I have been looking at this lens and Blacks Canada said they no longer have any in stock and that it is marked as discontinued, I asked for the manager not accepting the kids on the phone the manager of tue square o,e store said the same thing he thought it was weird and said he would call Canon.

I got a voice mail back from him an hour later saying that the lens is discontinued by Canon Canada and they can no longer order it in.

wtf???


----------



## STEMI_RN (May 8, 2013)

I seriously doubt it. It's one of Canon's best selling lenses.


----------



## kennephoto (May 8, 2013)

Well that's pretty lame for you if you wanted to buy it!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

Very strange


----------



## WPJ (May 8, 2013)

And I do, as a can't afford the 16-35.... I think I have one though


----------



## Harv (May 8, 2013)

I find that hard to believe. This lens is a cash cow for Canon. One of the most popular 'L' series lenses.

Here you go. This is where you should buy it. In stock, on sale and free shipping.....

http://www.adencamera.com/product-overviewer.asp?ProdID=121&Category=7


----------



## brad-man (May 8, 2013)

I also doubt it, but if true there will need to be a replacement. _Image Stabilized perhaps?_


----------



## JPAZ (May 8, 2013)

Still on the Canon USA website


----------



## alphajim (May 8, 2013)

Maybe I got a bad copy, or I had higher expectations coming from medium format primes, but I just don't think it's all that special. It's a nice range, but I've got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for crop bodies that's easily it's equal or better from an image standpoint. Now you do have to factor in the "L features" like internal focusing and very smooth/quiet operation and maybe that makes up the price difference. Not bad at f/8 and 11 and falls off quickly on either side.

I still feel it's overhyped by people who are comparing it to kit lenses.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 8, 2013)

I actually sold mine when I got a good copy of the IS 18-55, was using it less and less. Great solid lens, nice speedy focus. Looks great on camera. Wasn't blown away by images. When I committed to cropped sensor fully (swithered before buying my 7D, the 5D2 didn't have a PAL mode at the time) I decided to shell up for a f2.8 zoom instead.


----------



## Snook (May 9, 2013)

I doubt it and sure hope not. It's on my radar for my next lens in the future.


----------



## Menace (May 9, 2013)

I recently added this lens to my kit - got a good price from my Canon dealer. There seem to be plenty of stock around over here atleast. 

If its discontinued, it's replacement is likely to be a lot more expensive imho


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 10, 2013)

Harv said:


> I find that hard to believe. This lens is a cash cow for Canon. One of the most popular 'L' series lenses.


+1


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2013)

alphajim said:


> Maybe I got a bad copy, or I had higher expectations coming from medium format primes, but I just don't think it's all that special.



It's special when you use a L lens outdoors in bad conditions and it still goes on shooting when other non-sealed lenses fail and need an expensive repair. Imho the iq is ok when stopped down, peaking @f8 - and considering the price I can live with that.


----------



## Tanja (May 10, 2013)

i had nothing against it.

i would love to see a 17-40mm II with better optical performance.
the borders on the curent version suck, to be honest.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 10, 2013)

I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2013)

nicke said:


> I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.



IS versions usually require a larger filter size (front element), that's supposedly why the 24-70/4 has IS and the 24-70/2.8 hasn't. For the 17-40L with 77mm now this might still work, but for the 82mm 16-35L it could be tricky.

In any case if the corner iq is also improved you'd probably see more weight and certainly a massively "improved" price tag. The question is if the 17-40L mk2 could still be the L budget choice - and if you want heavier and better, you can get the current 16-35L right now.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 10, 2013)

Prepare for 14-24 f2.8 IS guys ;D


----------



## Tanja (May 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I
> 
> In any case if the corner iq is also improved you'd probably see more weight and certainly a massively "improved" price tag. The question is if the 17-40L mk2 could still be the L budget choice - and if you want heavier and better, you can get the current 16-35L right now.



the 16-35 is sure faster.... optical better... not really.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2013)

Tanja said:


> the 16-35 is sure faster.... optical better... not really.



It is if at least some corner sharpness on widest setting & ff is important to you w/o stopping down too much - but certainly not enough for me to pay double the price and carry more weight and bulk... 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## Tanja (May 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Tanja said:
> 
> 
> > the 16-35 is sure faster.... optical better... not really.
> ...



well... yes... it depends how do you define better.

both reviews on photozone and digital picture say the 17-40mm and 16-35mm are basically equal, when stopped down.

i had both (kept the 17-40mm).


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> nicke said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.
> ...



Nikon have a 16-35/4 VR, http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm, with 77mm filter size. The 16-35/2.8L II that I have seen, have not that good optical quality in the corners. 

Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 12, 2013)

nicke said:


> Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...



The reason for the non-IS tele lenses being still produced imho is that for sports IS is useless, esp. when using a monopod - so there's a "legitimate" demand here.

For other, shorter lenses I doubt if Canon would want to expand their lens zoo, they'd rater make a superior version and discontinue the old one - or they could have also kept the much less expensive 24-70/2.8 mk1 when the mk2 was out.

Meaning: I doubt they'd keep two 17-40L around, and more expensive would run into marketing problems, so I doubt they'll discontinue the current 17-40L (thread title), but they'll surely add a premium 14-24L and might even do a 16-35L mk3 with IS sometime if Nikon has it.


----------



## Surfwooder (May 13, 2013)

Hi All, If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more. The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00
Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00. My two cents.


----------



## jdramirez (May 13, 2013)

STEMI_RN said:


> I seriously doubt it. It's one of Canon's best selling lenses.



I agree. It is one of their lower performing L lenses and I imagine it is pretty cheap to make. If they sell 200,000 a year, they will make a a small killing. It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.


----------



## tapanit (May 13, 2013)

Surfwooder said:


> Hi All, If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more. The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00


The 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is even cheaper ($629 at B&H). I believe it is also still selling very well, despite of the existence of the IS version.


> Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00. My two cents.


Canon certainly wants to make more dollars, but I don't think they would do that by replacing the 17-40/4L with something much more expensive - rather that'd be likely to benefit Sigma, Tamron & Tokina. If the 17-40 is to be discontinued, I'd expect a substitute without IS and only slightly higher price (under $1000). If they decide to make an IS version, which would be interesting, it's likely to be offered alongside the non-IS version, just like the 70-200 lenses are.


----------



## M.ST (May 13, 2013)

Since a year a 17-40 L replacement is out for testing but nothing hit the market until today.

The days of the original 17-40 L are count. But we will see a replacement.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2013)

M.ST said:


> Since a year a 17-40 L replacement is out for testing but nothing hit the market until today. The days of the original 17-40 L are count. But we will see a replacement.



Interesting to know (and contradicts my speculation ) ... though I'm not unhappy to have gotten the "old" 17-40L with a rebate because the new one will surely be a lot more expensive, and in addition a prototype doesn't mean anything with Canon concerning a timely release.


----------



## WPJ (May 13, 2013)

I picked mine up Thursday...love it...


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 13, 2013)

the 17-40mm is 10 years old.. it´s time for an update.

and when we look at the big MP camera that canon will release, better UWW are desperately needed. not everyone will he happy using the 17mm or 24mm TS II lenses.

neither the 17-40mm nor the 16-35mm lenses are good matches for a 35+MP camera


----------



## insanitybeard (May 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.



I don't entirely agree with this, the 17-40's inferior corner performance at wider focal lengths and apertures is fairly well known, so if Canon could improve the performance, I for one would be interested. A possible 14-24 2.8 is of lesser interest to me if it means it does not have a screw on filter thread, as is the 16-35 2.8 as I mainly use the lens stopped down a bit for landscapes. The current 17-40 is a nice lightweight and relatively compact sealed lens, which is good for e.g hiking outdoors and travelling light!


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.



you know nothing jon snow....



insanitybeard said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. It is one of their lower performing L lenses and I imagine it is pretty cheap to make. If they sell 200,000 a year, they will make a a small killing. It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.
> ...



i want a better 17-40mm too.


----------



## Vossie (May 13, 2013)

In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 13, 2013)

Vossie said:


> In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.



they could sell the stock to make room for the new one.
nobody said it will be released this month or the next.

all shops here have plenty of 17-40mm in stock.


----------



## jdramirez (May 13, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.
> ...



I hate that line. I'm reading the books and then watching the show after I'm done with a book and she is the worst character. 

And everyone would want better performance at the same price, but I don't believe someone is looking to have an IS version of the lens for twice the price. At f/8 it is a nice sharp lens, which is great considering it is more of a landscape lens and you usually use a tripod... 

I really should bow out of this conversation... because I dont' care for landscape photography.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 13, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



actually i liked ygritte in the books.
but not so much on the show.



> And everyone would want better performance at the same price, but I don't believe someone is looking to have an IS version of the lens for twice the price. At f/8 it is a nice sharp lens, which is great considering it is more of a landscape lens and you usually use a tripod...



i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (May 13, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
> but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.



+1


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> and when we look at the big MP camera that canon will release, better UWW are desperately needed



This is most likely the driving force between lots of lens updates, including the 24-70/2.8 mk2...



Vossie said:


> In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.



The fact that there is a prototype means nothing - FIRST they have to put it in the production queue to make it mass-produceable, THEN they need to fix a price considering production costs and marketing, THEN they need time to stockpile, THEN you have to wait half a year for the early adopter's release price to drop to a reasonable level.


----------



## ecka (May 14, 2013)

Sometimes I think that a nice and small ~20mm f/4 prime (pancake maybe) would be my perfect UWA lens.


----------



## Skirball (May 20, 2013)

nicke said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
> ...



+2


----------



## Click (May 20, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
> but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.




+1


----------



## Skirball (May 20, 2013)

Click said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
> ...



We're at 3 now.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Canon-F1 said:
> ...



-1 ... you're at 2 again  because for €1000+ I'd rather buy a f2.8 lens I can also use for non-landscape purposes, or if I have money to burn t/s primes with less distortion and capability for architecture.


----------



## Skirball (May 20, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



Heh. That’s fine, and it’s a fair point, though technically we weren’t looking for the average. A comment was made that NO ONE was looking for a higher performing 17-40, and several have spoken up that they are. There are a lot of people out there that make their living shooting a ton of UWA for architectural/real estate work. It’s rarely shot at large apertures and the number one complaint about the Canon UWA lenses is that they're soft in the corners; something very noticeable in that type of photography. Although it’d be nice to have a faster lens for other uses, many people wouldn’t want the additional cost, weight, and size that comes with 2.8 and IS that they’ll practically never use professionally.


----------



## Nounours18200 (May 20, 2013)

I would be happy to see a better 17-40/4 L, but not with IS at twice the price and much heavier...

The 17-40 has been the lens I use the most often, it is light, very good for the price: but I am afraid to see a replacement with a much higher price, a much heavier lens, and not * that * optically better... The current Canon pricing policy is not making me optimistic...


----------

