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

[Tanja]

the 16-35 is sure faster.... optical better... not really.

It is if at least some corner sharpness on widest setting & ff is important to you w/o stopping down too much - but certainly not enough for me to pay double the price and carry more weight and bulk...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

well... yes... it depends how do you define better.

both reviews on photozone and digital picture say the 17-40mm and 16-35mm are basically equal, when stopped down.

i had both (kept the 17-40mm).

 

[Deleted member 20471]

I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.

IS versions usually require a larger filter size (front element), that's supposedly why the 24-70/4 has IS and the 24-70/2.8 hasn't. For the 17-40L with 77mm now this might still work, but for the 82mm 16-35L it could be tricky.

In any case if the corner iq is also improved you'd probably see more weight and certainly a massively "improved" price tag. The question is if the 17-40L mk2 could still be the L budget choice - and if you want heavier and better, you can get the current 16-35L right now.

Nikon have a 16-35/4 VR, http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm, with 77mm filter size. The 16-35/2.8L II that I have seen, have not that good optical quality in the corners.

Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...

 

[Marsu42]

Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...

The reason for the non-IS tele lenses being still produced imho is that for sports IS is useless, esp. when using a monopod - so there's a "legitimate" demand here.

For other, shorter lenses I doubt if Canon would want to expand their lens zoo, they'd rater make a superior version and discontinue the old one - or they could have also kept the much less expensive 24-70/2.8 mk1 when the mk2 was out.

Meaning: I doubt they'd keep two 17-40L around, and more expensive would run into marketing problems, so I doubt they'll discontinue the current 17-40L (thread title), but they'll surely add a premium 14-24L and might even do a 16-35L mk3 with IS sometime if Nikon has it.

 

[Surfwooder]

Hi All, If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more. The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00
Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00. My two cents.

 

[jdramirez]

I seriously doubt it. It's one of Canon's best selling lenses.

I agree. It is one of their lower performing L lenses and I imagine it is pretty cheap to make. If they sell 200,000 a year, they will make a a small killing. It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

 

[tapanit]

Hi All, If you look at all the other Canon "L" products you will notice all the prices are above $1000.00 or more. The Canon EF 17-40mm f4L is priced at $839.00

The 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is even cheaper ($629 at B&H). I believe it is also still selling very well, despite of the existence of the IS version.

Canon may want to make few more American dollars, add IS, and raise the price to $14-1500.00. My two cents.

Canon certainly wants to make more dollars, but I don't think they would do that by replacing the 17-40/4L with something much more expensive - rather that'd be likely to benefit Sigma, Tamron & Tokina. If the 17-40 is to be discontinued, I'd expect a substitute without IS and only slightly higher price (under $1000). If they decide to make an IS version, which would be interesting, it's likely to be offered alongside the non-IS version, just like the 70-200 lenses are.

 

[M.ST]

Since a year a 17-40 L replacement is out for testing but nothing hit the market until today.

The days of the original 17-40 L are count. But we will see a replacement.

 

[Marsu42]

Since a year a 17-40 L replacement is out for testing but nothing hit the market until today. The days of the original 17-40 L are count. But we will see a replacement.

Interesting to know (and contradicts my speculation ) ... though I'm not unhappy to have gotten the "old" 17-40L with a rebate because the new one will surely be a lot more expensive, and in addition a prototype doesn't mean anything with Canon concerning a timely release.

 

[WPJ]

I picked mine up Thursday...love it...

 

[Canon-F1]

the 17-40mm is 10 years old.. it´s time for an update.

and when we look at the big MP camera that canon will release, better UWW are desperately needed. not everyone will he happy using the 17mm or 24mm TS II lenses.

neither the 17-40mm nor the 16-35mm lenses are good matches for a 35+MP camera

 

[insanitybeard]

It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

I don't entirely agree with this, the 17-40's inferior corner performance at wider focal lengths and apertures is fairly well known, so if Canon could improve the performance, I for one would be interested. A possible 14-24 2.8 is of lesser interest to me if it means it does not have a screw on filter thread, as is the 16-35 2.8 as I mainly use the lens stopped down a bit for landscapes. The current 17-40 is a nice lightweight and relatively compact sealed lens, which is good for e.g hiking outdoors and travelling light!

 

[Canon-F1]

It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

you know nothing jon snow....

I agree. It is one of their lower performing L lenses and I imagine it is pretty cheap to make. If they sell 200,000 a year, they will make a a small killing. It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

I don't entirely agree with this, the 17-40's inferior corner performance at wider focal lengths and apertures is fairly well known, so if Canon could improve the performance, I for one would be interested. A possible 14-24 2.8 is of lesser interest to me if it means it does not have a screw on filter thread, as is the 16-35 2.8 as I mainly use the lens stopped down a bit for landscapes. The current 17-40 is a nice lightweight and relatively compact sealed lens, which is good for e.g hiking outdoors and travelling light!

i want a better 17-40mm too.

 

[Vossie]

In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.

 

[Canon-F1]

In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.

they could sell the stock to make room for the new one.
nobody said it will be released this month or the next.

all shops here have plenty of 17-40mm in stock.

 

[jdramirez]

It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

you know nothing jon snow....

I hate that line. I'm reading the books and then watching the show after I'm done with a book and she is the worst character.

And everyone would want better performance at the same price, but I don't believe someone is looking to have an IS version of the lens for twice the price. At f/8 it is a nice sharp lens, which is great considering it is more of a landscape lens and you usually use a tripod...

I really should bow out of this conversation... because I dont' care for landscape photography.

 

[Canon-F1]

It is possible they will update date it, but NO ONE is clamoring for a better performing 17-40.

you know nothing jon snow....

I hate that line. I'm reading the books and then watching the show after I'm done with a book and she is the worst character.

actually i liked ygritte in the books.
but not so much on the show.

And everyone would want better performance at the same price, but I don't believe someone is looking to have an IS version of the lens for twice the price. At f/8 it is a nice sharp lens, which is great considering it is more of a landscape lens and you usually use a tripod...

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.

 

[Deleted member 20471]

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

 

[Marsu42]

and when we look at the big MP camera that canon will release, better UWW are desperately needed

This is most likely the driving force between lots of lens updates, including the 24-70/2.8 mk2...

In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.

The fact that there is a prototype means nothing - FIRST they have to put it in the production queue to make it mass-produceable, THEN they need to fix a price considering production costs and marketing, THEN they need time to stockpile, THEN you have to wait half a year for the early adopter's release price to drop to a reasonable level.

 

[ecka]

Sometimes I think that a nice and small ~20mm f/4 prime (pancake maybe) would be my perfect UWA lens.

 

[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

+2