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

[VASH1291]

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 

[canon816]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

+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]

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

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

+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

+1

[awinphoto]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.