# 17-40mm f/4L replacement



## match14 (Jan 23, 2011)

With the introduction of the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye zoom does any one here think that a replacement for the 17-40 f/4L might start at 15mm? Maybe a 15-40mm or maybe a bit longer say 15-50mm or even a 15-60mm?

Any thoughts?


----------



## tzalmagor (Jan 24, 2011)

It's not the same 15mm - the 8-15mm lens is a fisheye, the 17-40mm is rectilinear.


----------



## match14 (Mar 1, 2011)

Ah well


----------



## Kuscali (Mar 2, 2011)

I suspect canon will replace it with an IS version to compete with the Nikon 16-35mm. It would be awesome if Canon made it a 16-40 I.S, I would like a 15-40 I.S even more however that would probably never happen as it would steal sales from the 15-85mm EF-S.


----------



## mogud (Mar 2, 2011)

Canon already has the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, so I'm not sure why they would consider a 15-40mm even with IS. The current 16-35mm f/2.8L II does not have IS, but it really doesn't need IS and the Mk II version has not been out that long. Upgrading the 17-40 with IS and a metal body would only make a great lens heavier and certainly more expensive. Probably north of $1500.00.rpnrne


----------



## kubelik (Mar 2, 2011)

I could see them doing something like an EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS USM, similar to what was rumored on CR recently ... I don't see a 15-40 f/4 IS being very easy to achieve on an EF-mount, however ... you'd pretty much lose the size/weight advantage that the 17-40 f/4 L has over the 16-35 f/2.8 L II, which is a large part of the reason people pick the 17-40


----------



## Flake (Mar 2, 2011)

I don't really care if it has IS or not although it would be nice, what is more important is a wide angle from Canon which actually performs on FF. The current version has no measureable resolution in the corners at 17mm wide open, even stopped down it doesn't improve enough. With a wide angle it's really important to get good resolution across the frame, it's about time Canon had something to rival Nikons 14 - 24mm f/2.8 without us having to buy Canon / Nikon adaptors.


----------



## Kuscali (Mar 3, 2011)

Nikon has a 14-24mm f/2.8 no VR lens, and then they have a 16-35mm f/4 VR lens. I really fancy that lens, on a Canon however it should be 15mm at the wide end. Both lenses are better than there Canon counterparts and cost roughly the same. 

People expected the Tokina 16-35mm f/2.8 as a Canon 14-24mm, however the photozone.de MTF chart for that lens does not show comparable performance to the Nikon 14-24mm. 

The 17-40 never really struck me as a FF lens. People always harp up and down for a EF-S L lens, in many ways I feel like the 17-40mmL is what they are looking for. 

For me it is going to be the Samyang 14mm, unless Canon releases a 17-40mm replacement with IS before April.


----------



## Kuscali (Mar 3, 2011)

Do you guys think that if an IS version of this lens is made, sales of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS will drop? I also forgot that Nikon does not have something comparable to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS yet.


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 3, 2011)

Kuscali said:


> Do you guys think that if an IS version of this lens is made, sales of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS will drop? I also forgot that Nikon does not have something comparable to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS yet.



Its a full frame lens, and not all that good on a crop camera. I had one, it was not nearly as good as my 17-55.

Once thing that you can count on, if a IS version comes out, it will be more expensive then the 17-55, but still f/4.


----------



## ronderick (Mar 4, 2011)

I think the great part about the 17-40mm is its size. It's pretty portable compared to the other L's.

However, I have my doubts about adding IS to this and what that'll do to the size and weight.


----------



## match14 (Mar 4, 2011)

I still keep debating between the 15-85 or the 17-55 as a replacement for my 18-55 IS, I like the range of the 15-85 but the constant aperture of the 17-55 and the 17-40, alos the 24-105 but that is not very wide on a crop body. A 15-60 f/2.8 would be great but I would love for a 15-70 f/4 or even 15-85 f/4 but I know these will never happen. Choosing between the 15-85 and the 17-55 what are peoples opinions. I mostly take either landscapes or people indoors and out.

Thanks


----------



## Flake (Mar 4, 2011)

I have a 5D MkII and I have a 17 - 40mm f/4 L Why not an f/2.8? Because it's a wide angle lens! Two main considerations here, when are you really going to need to blur the background with what is largely a landscape/ interiors lens, and even on a FF camera the shorter the focal length the greater the depth of field (yes I know the arguement about magnification but it's a circular one in this case).

If you really need to do a table setting blurring out the background f/2.8 isn't really going to be enough to get the best bokeh and there the primes score, or a tilt shift where the DoF can be controlled.

Sometimes you're out when light isn't so good and you want an low aperture (F/13 up) for DoF and nothing other than IS (if you haven't got a tripod) is going to help. In landscape photography shutter speeds are used to create effects, having a lens which is able to allow shutter speeds four stops slower than the rule of thumb would indicate you need is a God send.


----------



## telephonic (Mar 5, 2011)

Just because it is wide-angle does not mean it doesn't deserve a larger aperture. Have you ever found yourself in a tight, dimly-lit room and wished you can have less noisy image (or freeze the movement), for example? That is where larger aperture comes to play, isn't it?

IMO, having larger aperture will not hurt.

Okay. I lied.
It does hurt if you have to lug it around for the whole day. Also it hurts your wallet, too. ;D


----------



## tzalmagor (Mar 6, 2011)

Just as there are four versions of the EF 70-200mm (= f/2.8 & f/4, w/ & w/o IS), I think there's place in the market for both an f/4 and an f/2.8 wide zooms.


----------



## Kuscali (Mar 6, 2011)

telephonic said:


> Just because it is wide-angle does not mean it doesn't deserve a larger aperture. Have you ever found yourself in a tight, dimly-lit room and wished you can have less noisy image (or freeze the movement), for example? That is where larger aperture comes to play, isn't it?
> 
> IMO, having larger aperture will not hurt.
> 
> ...



Why would Canon make the 17-40mm f/4 faster if they already have the 16-35mm f/2.8?


----------

