17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

[Click]

i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.

+1

 

[Skirball]

i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.

+1

We're at 3 now.

 

[Marsu42]

i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.

+1

We're at 3 now.

-1 ... you're at 2 again because for €1000+ I'd rather buy a f2.8 lens I can also use for non-landscape purposes, or if I have money to burn t/s primes with less distortion and capability for architecture.

 

[Skirball]

i agree to that. i don´t need or want an IS version when it increases the price a lot.
but i would pay more for a (noticable) optical better 17-40mm f4.

+1

We're at 3 now.

-1 ... you're at 2 again because for €1000+ I'd rather buy a f2.8 lens I can also use for non-landscape purposes, or if I have money to burn t/s primes with less distortion and capability for architecture.

Heh. That’s fine, and it’s a fair point, though technically we weren’t looking for the average. A comment was made that NO ONE was looking for a higher performing 17-40, and several have spoken up that they are. There are a lot of people out there that make their living shooting a ton of UWA for architectural/real estate work. It’s rarely shot at large apertures and the number one complaint about the Canon UWA lenses is that they're soft in the corners; something very noticeable in that type of photography. Although it’d be nice to have a faster lens for other uses, many people wouldn’t want the additional cost, weight, and size that comes with 2.8 and IS that they’ll practically never use professionally.

 

[Nounours18200]

I would be happy to see a better 17-40/4 L, but not with IS at twice the price and much heavier...

The 17-40 has been the lens I use the most often, it is light, very good for the price: but I am afraid to see a replacement with a much higher price, a much heavier lens, and not * that * optically better... The current Canon pricing policy is not making me optimistic...