Canon EF 17-40mm F4 L lens is discontinued?

Sort by date Sort by votes
#7
Rocky said:
It is a great lens for APS-C, If you can live with the large size and heavy weight
Click to expand...
Even with an R6, I think the lens doesn't have to hide for the low price. Options like the RF14-35 cost three to four times as much. You just have to be able to live with the not so good corners. For the few times a year where I angle ultra wide, it's definitely enough. Mine, however, comes from my APS-C time with the 7D... :)
 
Upvote 0
#8
Felix said:
Even with an R6, I think the lens doesn't have to hide for the low price. Options like the RF14-35 cost three to four times as much. You just have to be able to live with the not so good corners. For the few times a year where I angle ultra wide, it's definitely enough. Mine, however, comes from my APS-C time with the 7D... :)
Click to expand...
I would't compare it to the RF 14-35 which is not only much wider, but also far better, especially in the corners (TDP comparison).
But is it as good as the latest Tamrons or Sigmas in that range??? I tend to doubt it.
Of course, it's a Canon L, so pretty well made. And, indeed, still a very good choice for APS-C. But the EF 16-35 F4 doesn't cost so much more, and is excellent right into the corners...
 
Upvote 0
#9
Not sure wtf the poster meant about size and weight but it's a great entry into L lenses for beginners along with the OG 70-200 f/4. However if you like the 17-40 but admit it's shortcomings, the Tamron I have listed in my sig line is heads above in every aspect. Truly a hidden gem, works wonderfully adapted in a body with IS as well. It's my stopgap until Canon releases something between it's 16mm and > $1699+ UWA lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Del Paso said:
I would't compare it to the RF 14-35 which is not only much wider, but also far better, especially in the corners (TDP comparison).
But is it as good as the latest Tamrons or Sigmas in that range??? I tend to doubt it.
Of course, it's a Canon L, so pretty well made. And, indeed, still a very good choice for APS-C. But the EF 16-35 F4 doesn't cost so much more, and is excellent right into the corners...
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with you. The 16-35 f4 is better. It still costs twice as much (used) as the 17-40. If you really only use it a few times, you should consider whether it's worth it. I prefer to spend my (unfortunately limited) money on other RF L lenses, which I use more often.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Blue Zurich said:
Not sure wtf the poster meant about size and weight but it's a great entry into L lenses for beginners along with the OG 70-200 f/4. However if you like the 17-40 but admit it's shortcomings, the Tamron I have listed in my sig line is heads above in every aspect. Truly a hidden gem, works wonderfully adapted in a body with IS as well. It's my stopgap until Canon releases something between it's 16mm and > $1699+ UWA lenses.
Click to expand...
I'm also still waiting for a good option between the RF16 and RF14-35, but weather protection is important to me and you won't find a wide RF L lens below 1.5k either.
 
Upvote 0
#12
Felix said:
I'm also still waiting for a good option between the RF16 and RF14-35, but weather protection is important to me and you won't find a wide RF L lens below 1.5k either.
Click to expand...
The sealing on the Tamron 17-35 is one major reason I picked it up! I'm waiting on an RF mount lens with it's same characteristics. Adapting the 16-35 f/4L is just too unwieldily for me so I love the light and small balance of the Tamron with the adapter, it's about the size of the RF 24-105 and 70-200 f/4. All three fit upright in bags as well which is a huge plus.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Felix said:
Yes I agree with you. The 16-35 f4 is better. It still costs twice as much (used) as the 17-40. If you really only use it a few times, you should consider whether it's worth it. I prefer to spend my (unfortunately limited) money on other RF L lenses, which I use more often.
Click to expand...
But why not a Tamron-Sigma alternative (for FF)?
 
Upvote 0
#14
Blue Zurich said:
The sealing on the Tamron 17-35 is one major reason I picked it up! I'm waiting on an RF mount lens with it's same characteristics. Adapting the 16-35 f/4L is just too unwieldily for me so I love the light and small balance of the Tamron with the adapter, it's about the size of the RF 24-105 and 70-200 f/4. All three fit upright in bags as well which is a huge plus.
Click to expand...
Del Paso said:
But why not a Tamron-Sigma alternative (for FF)?
Click to expand...
Yes, the tamron may also be good and delivers good results. It's also very good for the price and the performance it offers. I personally (even if it's stupid) like everything from one source, i.e. from one manufacturer. But I have to admit that the Tamron really piqued my interest! :)
I'm now also very concerned about weight and size, but that's why I would go for a native RF. If I'm already swapping the lens then I would also like to get rid of the adapter and sell it. It's more emotional and not what's best…

I think my emotions for the lens also come from the fact that it's my first L lens, which I bought when I was 14 years old to replace the EF-S 18-55.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#15
Felix said:
Yes, the tamron may also be good and delivers good results. It's also very good for the price and the performance it offers. I personally (even if it's stupid) like everything from one source, i.e. from one manufacturer. But I have to admit that the Tamron really piqued my interest! :)
I'm now also very concerned about weight and size, but that's why I would go for a native RF. If I'm already swapping the lens then I would also like to get rid of the adapter and sell it. It's more emotional and not what's best…

I think my emotions for the lens also come from the fact that it's my first L lens, which I bought when I was 14 years old to replace the EF-S 18-55.
Click to expand...
I can understand, since, apart from the odd Zeiss ZE, I only bought Canon lenses. It may be purely subjective, or plain silly, but I've never been fond of third-party lenses. Yet, I know, some Sigmas can be better (sharper!) than their Canon L counterparts (Sigma 135 vs. EF 135 f2). Knowing this, I bought the Canon 135 without any regrets, and love it!
Anyway, what is "better"? There's more to a lens than just sharpness, just take a look at the wonderful EF 1,2/85...
 
Upvote 0
#16
Del Paso said:
I can understand, since, apart from the odd Zeiss ZE, I only bought Canon lenses. It may be purely subjective, or plain silly, but I've never been fond of third-party lenses. Yet, I know, some Sigmas can be better (sharper!) than their Canon L counterparts (Sigma 135 vs. EF 135 f2). Knowing this, I bought the Canon 135 without any regrets, and love it!
Anyway, what is "better"? There's more to a lens than just sharpness, just take a look at the wonderful EF 1,2/85...
Click to expand...
Further development is always good for the competition. There are lenses where I want absolute sharpness like my RF100 Macro, but only for macros. When I shoot portraits with it, I like to use the SA control to blur the image a touch (one of five steps). No model ever wanted to see all the details. A good focus motor is important to me. I‘ve had the RF85 f2 STM and the STM motor just couldn't keep up - (That didn't work at all, I sold it and replaced it with the RF100) - The overall package simply has to be right. For the (especially used) price of the 17-40 you just can't go wrong.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon RF 20-50mm F4 PZ & RF 45mm F1.2 STM Appear on Canon Survey Form
Replies
66
Views
8K
koenkooi
koenkooi
M
Canon EF 600mm f$ Mkii playing up
Replies
4
Views
501
Mikehit
M
J
Sigma USB DOCK for Canon EF Discontinued
Replies
4
Views
533
Jon741
J
Ozarker
OMG, all possible lens choices are too good!
Replies
3
Views
612
Buylongterm
B
Canon Rumors
Canon APS-C Shooters Rejoice: Sigma to Launch the RF 17-40mm f/1.8 and RF 12mm f/1.4
Replies
102
Views
17K
mimbu
M
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu