|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Update
From a usually solid source. I´m told to expect an update to the 17-40 sometime in 2009. The current lens a cash cow for Canon and any replacement is sure to be a hot seller. The main purpose for the upgrade is to improve full frame performance. The replacement will not have IS.
crÂÂ
While an upgrade to this lens would be nice, I wonder how it will affect the 16-35 f/2.8 II sales. If the 17-40 improves its performance I would be hard pressed to want to spend on the 16-35 unless I simply needed the speed advantage. For outdoor use they would mostly be stopped down.
Dose that mean that the current 17-40 price will go down?
While I’m sure this update would be a hot seller, I never really felt that this lens was fast enough. Improving full-frame performance is a great thing, but for such a popular lens I would have hoped for something a little brighter, even if just on the wide end. IS would be nice too, but generally for that focal length, faster would be more advantageous.
Let us know if you hear anything about roughly when in 2009 if the rumour holds true. Thanks!
what does improve on full fram performance mean??
like less vignetting and chromatic aberrations on the outer area?
@ Don –
you are basically describing the 16-35.
I for one would love this as I already shoot with a 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 so the 17-40 with no softness in the corners would be the lens that I could buy solely for landscapes that I would shoot mainly in the f8 to f 16 range with f4 being fast enough to offer bokeh for the occasional “separation from background” shot…
If this happens I *will* be getting a 17-40. I just don’t know if it would be a super cheap *old* versions or the new one with the fixes. Just depends on what they choose as the price point for the new version.
The problem is I am going to Salzburg, Austria next month and I really need a nice wide angle for the trip. The only wide lens I have now is the kit lens that came with the 450d. I do have the 70-200f/4, but have you seen the landscape over there in Austria!! Wow.
If what I have read here is true these are potentially to probably going to come in 2009?
17-40mm f/4
300mm f/2.8
400mm f/2.8
I think this is what I have read here for 2009 projections. I am just putting them together. Sounds like some good choices.
I have also seen projections that the 1Ds Mark III will be replaced this year to keep up with the Jones and what I definitely think will (or at least should) see this year is the replacement for the 1D Mark III.
This is of course not counting the Point and Shoots and lower end DSLRs. If we see all this it doesn’t sound like a bad year for Canon at all even though it has been said it will be the worst year ever.
Don’t take me wrong I am NOT complaining. New toys for all to buy or drool over until we can buy. Pro gear, especially in the media side, i.e. 1D Mark III replacement will probably do okay toward the end of the year with the olympics coming assuming they actually do a better job than the current model. Again, I really hope they do.
Sounds like it may not be that bad a year for Canon after all?
if those 3 are the only ones getting updated/introduced, it’ll be a huge shame… the 300/400 are just fine and quite frankly 17-40 could use a bit more than just an update. It was a decent lens when I owned it but it was a bit short and thus doesn’t distinguish itself that much from the 16-35 (besides price)… its would be nice if they made it the 17-50mm for FF and kept the F4 (and got the optical performance where it needs to be)…. now that would be a meaningful update. Besides those I really hope they get a 500/5.6 L IS at a reasonable price or maybe morph the 100-400 IS into a 200-500/5.6 L IS (with better performance at the long end)…. now that would be introducing meaningful upgrades to their lens lineup rather than just spining their wheels with lenses that are already fine.
I just want the 1D MKx in my hands before the end of June. Going to the Nice Ironman to shoot and I need it :)
If we are opening this up to what we’d like…
(thanks for opening that door Ms.)
I’d 2nd a new lens – rather than an update…
something that goes lets say 16 – 50 and even if it has to be 2.8 – 4 to keep price/size down it would be an amazing lens for street shooting…2.8 all the way through would be even better…
I’d love to see a 200-500/4 IS NOT push pull
I’d truly love to see someone take a chance on reestablishing the “normal zoom” the way they did and drop another 4mm (like the did when the went from 28-70 to 24-70) and go to 20-85 2.8
that would be the KILLER wedding walk around lens…
17-40 MK II would be nice.. but only for those with the 1Ds III or 5D II.. the current lens can resolve easily for the 5D, and just about tops out on the 1Ds II.
I wouldn’t buy a Mk II because I’ve no interest in going to 21mp and above.
new 17-40 is desnecessary…16-35 2.8 enough for any work…
necessary is one 24-70 f2.8 IS!!!!!! when this became?
Or a 24-85 2.8L with really sharp edges for use on 1Ds III.
The lens has really good reviews. No one here can tell us what exactly should be improved.
24-70 is weak at the long end and 70-200 has to be improved at the short end. There is a lot to do … Why just improve 17-40 ???
I also wonder why they tried to improve 17-40m but not 24-70 F2.8 or 70-200 F2.8? Compared to the latest 24-70 introduced by Nixxn, our 24-70 is just a old and heavy dunkey. Also, 70-200 F2.8 gives away its performance leadership in all area above F/4 to its little brother 70-200 F4. So Why 17-40 first? I want new ZOOM lens but not 17-40….
Why? Because if you want a good sharp landscape wideangle on canon fullframe you can’t have one. Even the Mk II version of 16-35 is no better than the 17-40 on most tests. I’ve used booth of them, and neither is as sharp as the EF-S 10-22 at the short end where you mostly use it. So I’m sticking with my 50d until a really sensational landscape lens comes along. I’ve even though of going Nikon to use the terrific 14-24 nikkor. But a 17-40 f4 that was really tack sharp to the edges would do: it’d be much cheaper smaller and ligher than the nikkor, and the f4 speed is plenty for my applications.
So I think there’s quite a consitituency of people whose worry about the Canon platform is the wideangle coverage — that matter a lot for the system as a whole. So I’m not surprized. The big white lenses are mostly state of the art anyway. I guess that’s why they did the 24 1.4 II. The reviews are just a bit disappointing, though maybe it’s as good as it can get for a wideagle of that speed. Can’t tell — no-one else makes one!
Id love a 200-400 F4 (fixed)IS lens as i dont see the point of the 100mm setting which is already covered by a range of other lens and will thus help keep size low, price low and quality high. Besides I think we need a nikkor 14-24 equivilant for us full frame-printing landscape fans
I agree with David. I think this lens would fill a landscape gap that is overdue for canon. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t do better on the 16-35II, but they didn’t and it’s a very expensive lens. If you want wide and sharp on Canon FF you need a 14II, but you lose versatility of zoom.
I guess Canon figures with a narrower max app. at f4 they will be able to nail this lens for wide ff shooters. Here’s to hoping they do. At a $600-700 initial price range that would sell gangbusters if these 17-40s were sharp corner to corner wide open. Or even better, if the above posters get their wish for a 17-50. Now that would be an attractive outdoor lens!
A 17-40 II would be nice… but my guess would be a 24-70 II IS before the 17-40. Who knows.
Actually the 17-40mm is more important than the 24-70mm in many respects. The 17-40mm isn’t just an important as a ultra wide landscape type lens on full frame cameras, but also makes for a good quality, but slower, alternative normal lens to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS on crop cameras. Its relatively inexpensive making it very popular. A version II of it is likely to be a better seller than a 24-70mm mk II because of its ability to be used on both FF and crops.
I don’t understand why Canon keep repeating the focal length range… why not a 17-55/4 L or a 17-105/4 L or a 10-40/4 L ???
mabbe a 16-70/2.8???
Canon should focus on responding to Nikon’s 14-24/2.8
@cryn I agree with this too, but this is a very different lens than say a 17-40f/4 or 17-50f/4.
Canon really needs to ramp up lens production if you ask me. A year and a half of focusing mostly on super teles and consumer grade lenses has clearly left a lot of pent up demand for L grade wide, medium, and long zooms.
there’s a lot of things canon needs to focus on, but they don’t…. don’t get me wrong, nikon misses the boat plenty too… their telephoto end sucks for someone on a budget… that’s one thing that kept me from switching when the d300 came out… no 400/5.6 or equivalent in IQ (never mind the 500/5.6 or equivalent zoom that id love to see)… still, as a canon shooter I do find myself more often than not frustrated by their choice of new releases
Is today’s 17-40 not going to keep up with the thhigh density pixels from the EOS 50D? Or the 5D MK II?
my vite for 14-30/4L with sharpness of nikon 14-24/2.8. I’m also waiting for usable 24-70/2.8 (not a good/bad copy lottery)
I’d also like to see an L quality 15~55 IS lens. Preferably f2.8. Also, if they could make it an internal focus design like the 17-40L that’d be great as well.
Hi Greg, i have 17-40 on 450d its ok,if youre on a budget and not going full frame in the future, look at tamron 2.8 see test at the digital pictue.com. rgds Kevin D.
Is this American?
when will this be released???
Is there an update for the 17-40 f/4 II? 2009 is almost over I never heard anything about this rumor. Are we expecting this to come at 2010? or is this just another rumor.
Sorry to bump an old thread.
Thank you!
it’s 2010…anyway did he mean that the replacement for this lens wld be the 14-24 f/2.8? cuz i dun see why canon will produce this new lens plus a mk II version of 17-40…
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM?