2003 vs 2013 17-40/4L

[Hugo Fisher]

Hi everybody!

I have just - I guess - simple question. Do you think that for example Canon 17-40/4L, which is (if I have right information) for 10 years on the market - will be still same? I mean if you like to compare lens made in 2003 and lens made in 2013 - would they still perform same (IQ)? I am just thinking, that even the lens is for a long time on the market, that company still have to inovate and using new components. So the lenses, even the old ones, should be changing in their performance.

What do you think? Thx.

 

[Ryan708]

I would bet that the lens is near-identical. Especially the glass. Designing glass takes a ton of time and money, and won't be tweaked, unless a new lens is released. If the early versions had any known electronic or mechanical problems, they would have fixed it in the later ones, Other than that they will be near-Identical. I am kind of eye-balling a 17-40 Myself, I have wanted one for a while

 

[Loswr]

Agree that the optical formula won't be different. Perhaps silent updates to AF motors, etc., but even then, that takes a lot of work to retool and re-qualify a manufacturing line, so if done, there'll have been a good reason for it.

So, the older lens might perform the same, might be worse. A lens can be banged around a lot in 10 years...

 

[distant.star]

.
My new 17-40 arrived today.

I was pretty good in 2003. I'm still pretty good.

 

[pwp]

I have worked a 17-40 pretty hard since I bought it in 2003, and it still works like new. Even so, they're inexpensive and you may as well get a new one. You'll know its history, and benefit from the possible silent updates Dr Neuro referred to. The 17-40 is a beauty. It's light, takes 77mm filters and matches the 16-35 f/2.8II from f/5.6 - f/11. However if you're hoping for stellar output wide open, you'll possibly be disappointed.

-PW