# Canon 17-40L lens for $500...good deal?



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2012)

I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....

From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?


I had been saving for a new 16-35mm L.....maybe I should pass on this and save my pennies a bit longer?

I'm just so anxious to get something wide angle....I've started off with the kit 24-105mm....and got the 85mm 1.8 too...but need something for more wide angle now....and I'll be good to go for awhile...

Cayenne


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

at that price you could probably buy it use it keep saving and sell it down the track for what you paid or more then get the 16-35, best of both worlds  if its in good condition its a good deal


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 7, 2012)

Heh, yea, the going rate on Ebay seems to be ~$600+. I know, I'm just starting to look.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 7, 2012)

cayenne said:


> I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....
> 
> From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?
> 
> ...



Well f/4 is only one f/stop narrower than f/2.8, so really if you don't need to shoot below 4, then I'd go 17-40L for a good lens and much cheaper. You have to decide why you would need, for yourself, below f/4. I have the 16-35L II and as luck would have it, I've never shot the thing below f/11!!! I've only been shooting wide landscapes with it. This is where I could be using the 17-40L and have saved $1k. Who knew?


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

If you're saving your pennies for a 16-35 f/2.8 original version, you'll be better off with the 17-40 f/4. No question. It sounds like good value. Buy it and keep saving. If the 17-40 does not meet your expectations, you won't lose a penny on it if you re-sell when you've saved enough for the 16-35 f/2.8II. At least you'll have a lens to work with in the meantime. Go for it.

PW


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

If you are going to be shooting at f/5.6 or slower for landscapes then it is a good deal

If you are going to be shooting indoors in poor light then perhaps you will need something faster than f/2.8


----------



## EOBeav (Jun 7, 2012)

It's great for landscapes. $500 is a good deal for this lens.


----------



## John Thomas (Jun 7, 2012)

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 7, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
> 
> ...



The Tokina is a bit limited on reach


----------



## EOBeav (Jun 7, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
> 
> ...



That lens doesn't accept front filter elements. I use a polarizer on my 17-40 about half the time I do landscapes, so this wouldn't be a good option in that case.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 7, 2012)

yes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 7, 2012)

John Thomas said:


> Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
> 
> ...



Oh come on. The 17-40L would be way better overall


----------



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....
> ...



Well, in addition to landscapes..I was also thinking of needs for some lower light indoor shooting that I need...for stills AND video...my kitchen is small, and I thought the wide angle zoom, would help me in some of my cooking show video shots....so, maybe I do need to wait for that 16-35mm, as that extra stop might prove to be important for that...

Decisions decisions....

As a noob, I've never sold a lens before obviously....how hard is it to sell? Is it better to see yourself (like this person is), or to one of the online places like KEH, etc?

Thanks for all the input!!!

C


----------



## K-amps (Jun 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> John Thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See
> ...



And does not take 77mm Filters 

@$500 and clean condition, it is 20% below market... if you can try it and it is sharp at f5.6-f8, then go for it.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 7, 2012)

Yes, it's a good deal. I used to shoot with a 16-35, but sold it for a 17-40 since I never shoot wide open. I don't miss the extra stop one bit. 

I used to own f/2.8 glass, but not anymore. Since I rarely aim for shallow DOF and with the incredible high ISO capabilities of modern DSLR's, fast glass is simply a luxury I don't need. Then Canon comes out with a new 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points that are sensitive to f/4, which makes owning f/2.8 glass even less important. The f/2.8 glass does make your e-wang look bigger, though, but I don't have a sig to list my gear in anyway ;D

Different strokes for different folks. If I were a bokeh addict, I'd just pick up a really fast prime.


----------



## VASH1291 (Jun 7, 2012)

This was my first L lens for the 7D and is still the go to lens for most situations.

And at $500 its a steal ;D


----------



## canon816 (Jun 7, 2012)

I own a Canon 17-40L. I have taken thousands of images with it and find it to be an outstanding lens. I almost never shoot wide open anyway. and with a wide lens like this f2.8 to f4 is not that much of a DOF benefit.

Ironically it is better optically then the 16-35, which is why I bought it.

You can find reviews for both of these lenses at slrgear.com

It works well with my polarizer but not very well with my 10 stop vari ND filter.

$500 is a good deal if it is in good shape with no element scratches or fungus.

I personally wouldn't buy a 16-35 over this lens even if money were no issue. The 17-40 is better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2012)

If you are up close in your kitchen at f/2.8, depth of field will probably be a huge issue, particularly for video. You might be better off cranking up the ISO and using a smaller aperture.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 7, 2012)

If your heart is set with 16-35 II, then save the money for it

If you think $500 is a good buy for 17-40 , then go for it and enjoy it now. Keep saving that money until you ready for 16-35 II, then sell 17-40. 

Win-Win situation here


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 7, 2012)

erm... plan on waiting for another $1000 on top of this to pick up the 16-35 II... It's only 1 stop slower, and seriously, on wide open, unless you're shooting motor cross or something like that, when would the 1 stop really buy you a shot when a F4 couldn't? Maybe weddings but even then 2.8 is kinda dicey... It's a very good lens overall and you wont regret it... and when you got the extra grand built up, sell the 17-40 and buy the new one. Keep it in good condition and it shouldn't depreciate too much. Plus if you want/need WA, its better getting that now then going however long without a WA option.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 8, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> erm... plan on waiting for another $1000 on top of this to pick up the 16-35 II... It's only 1 stop slower, and seriously, on wide open, unless you're shooting motor cross or something like that, when would the 1 stop really buy you a shot when a F4 couldn't? Maybe weddings but even then 2.8 is kinda dicey... It's a very good lens overall and you wont regret it... and when you got the extra grand built up, sell the 17-40 and buy the new one. Keep it in good condition and it shouldn't depreciate too much. Plus if you want/need WA, its better getting that now then going however long without a WA option.



its a bit more than that, the mk2 16-35 is sharper at f2.8 than the 17-40 is at f4
granted stopped down to f8 or something they are pretty similar but the sharp wide open aperture is what makes the 16-35 great for alot more than tripod shot landscapes.

if used soley for landscapes and shooting at narrow apertures i would say definately save some money and stick with the 17-40

however at $500 he cant lose on grabbing the 17-40 now and seeing if he has any need of the 16-35 down the track


----------



## pwp (Jun 8, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> John Thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price.
> ...



+1 You can't argue with this. The 17-40 is a professional grade L lens. I've had one since they first shipped nine years ago. It's been in daily use ever since in a demanding client environment. At $500 it probably won't last long. Snap it up. You'll easily make your money back in the unlikely event it doesn't work for you.

PW


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 8, 2012)

pwp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > John Thomas said:
> ...



+1


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 8, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > erm... plan on waiting for another $1000 on top of this to pick up the 16-35 II... It's only 1 stop slower, and seriously, on wide open, unless you're shooting motor cross or something like that, when would the 1 stop really buy you a shot when a F4 couldn't? Maybe weddings but even then 2.8 is kinda dicey... It's a very good lens overall and you wont regret it... and when you got the extra grand built up, sell the 17-40 and buy the new one. Keep it in good condition and it shouldn't depreciate too much. Plus if you want/need WA, its better getting that now then going however long without a WA option.
> ...



That was one of the things I was eluding to... get the 17-40 and if he is underwhelmed, he at least has that in his arsenal to help finance the 16-35 II when he has the means to do so, but at least he can use the 17-40 in the interim. It's a good lens and definitely better than the 16-35 first gen. I love the 17-40 but would be amongst the first in line when the 17-40 II comes out if they somehow manage to keep the sucker under $1200.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 9, 2012)

One other variable.

I bought my camera from crutchfield and got in on their double rewards points.

I have just less than $500 worth off next purchase from them...that would knock down the 16-35 quite a bit.

I am about to look at the 70-40 tomorrow.....I'd almost settled to get it...and then, maybe save for the 14mm wide angle later...but crutchfield doesn't carry that one, so, I'm reconsidering.

Maybe I should wait one more month..put another $500 or so with my current $500...and get the 16-35 for about $1100....


Decisions, decisions....

C


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 9, 2012)

canon816 said:


> I own a Canon 17-40L. I have taken thousands of images with it and find it to be an outstanding lens. I almost never shoot wide open anyway. and with a wide lens like this f2.8 to f4 is not that much of a DOF benefit.
> 
> Ironically it is better optically then the 16-35, which is why I bought it.
> 
> ...



Well, have you ever owned the 16-35L II? The 17-40 is not optically better. Maybe there isn't much difference to most people, but you can't say that it is better, because it's not. I have owned both and the 16-35L II at very close inspection is clearly sharper. Perhaps not enough to justify the price difference, since the 17-40L is outstanding as well. But I have no idea where you got that.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Jun 9, 2012)

I almost ALWAYS shoot wide on my 16-35 II... From what i hear the ver II has ALOT less distortion than the Ver I. I shoot on a crop (making this a "normal" lens) and LOVE the results I get... I hear alot of good about the 17-40 and alot of people swear by it. 

I now swear by my 16-35II so I would still reccommend this... But would not by any means disagree with those who have posted before me


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> I almost ALWAYS shoot wide on my 16-35 II... From what i hear the ver II has ALOT less distortion than the Ver I. I shoot on a crop (making this a "normal" lens) and LOVE the results I get... I hear alot of good about the 17-40 and alot of people swear by it.
> 
> I now swear by my 16-35II so I would still reccommend this... But would not by any means disagree with those who have posted before me



16-35 II is an awsome lens for crop. But I like it alot more on FF, it has 3D-look if you know how to play with angles.


----------

