Canon 17-40L lens for $500...good deal?

[cayenne]

I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....

From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?


I had been saving for a new 16-35mm L.....maybe I should pass on this and save my pennies a bit longer?

I'm just so anxious to get something wide angle....I've started off with the kit 24-105mm....and got the 85mm 1.8 too...but need something for more wide angle now....and I'll be good to go for awhile...

Cayenne

 

[wickidwombat]

at that price you could probably buy it use it keep saving and sell it down the track for what you paid or more then get the 16-35, best of both worlds if its in good condition its a good deal

 

[Drizzt321]

Heh, yea, the going rate on Ebay seems to be ~$600+. I know, I'm just starting to look.

 

[bdunbar79]

I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....

From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?


I had been saving for a new 16-35mm L.....maybe I should pass on this and save my pennies a bit longer?

I'm just so anxious to get something wide angle....I've started off with the kit 24-105mm....and got the 85mm 1.8 too...but need something for more wide angle now....and I'll be good to go for awhile...

Cayenne

Well f/4 is only one f/stop narrower than f/2.8, so really if you don't need to shoot below 4, then I'd go 17-40L for a good lens and much cheaper. You have to decide why you would need, for yourself, below f/4. I have the 16-35L II and as luck would have it, I've never shot the thing below f/11!!! I've only been shooting wide landscapes with it. This is where I could be using the 17-40L and have saved $1k. Who knew?

 

[pwp]

If you're saving your pennies for a 16-35 f/2.8 original version, you'll be better off with the 17-40 f/4. No question. It sounds like good value. Buy it and keep saving. If the 17-40 does not meet your expectations, you won't lose a penny on it if you re-sell when you've saved enough for the 16-35 f/2.8II. At least you'll have a lens to work with in the meantime. Go for it.

PW

 

[briansquibb]

If you are going to be shooting at f/5.6 or slower for landscapes then it is a good deal

If you are going to be shooting indoors in poor light then perhaps you will need something faster than f/2.8

 

[EOBeav]

It's great for landscapes. $500 is a good deal for this lens.

 

[John Thomas]

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH

 

[briansquibb]

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH

The Tokina is a bit limited on reach

 

[EOBeav]

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH

That lens doesn't accept front filter elements. I use a polarizer on my 17-40 about half the time I do landscapes, so this wouldn't be a good option in that case.

 

[RLPhoto]

yes.

 

[bdunbar79]

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH

Oh come on. The 17-40L would be way better overall

 

[cayenne]

I found this lens for sale local near a friend of mine that I can get it for me....

From pics..appears to be in good shape? But this is a f/4 lens..right..so, much slower than the 16-35, right?


I had been saving for a new 16-35mm L.....maybe I should pass on this and save my pennies a bit longer?

I'm just so anxious to get something wide angle....I've started off with the kit 24-105mm....and got the 85mm 1.8 too...but need something for more wide angle now....and I'll be good to go for awhile...

Cayenne

Well f/4 is only one f/stop narrower than f/2.8, so really if you don't need to shoot below 4, then I'd go 17-40L for a good lens and much cheaper. You have to decide why you would need, for yourself, below f/4. I have the 16-35L II and as luck would have it, I've never shot the thing below f/11!!! I've only been shooting wide landscapes with it. This is where I could be using the 17-40L and have saved $1k. Who knew?

Well, in addition to landscapes..I was also thinking of needs for some lower light indoor shooting that I need...for stills AND video...my kitchen is small, and I thought the wide angle zoom, would help me in some of my cooking show video shots....so, maybe I do need to wait for that 16-35mm, as that extra stop might prove to be important for that...

Decisions decisions....

As a noob, I've never sold a lens before obviously....how hard is it to sell? Is it better to see yourself (like this person is), or to one of the online places like KEH, etc?

Thanks for all the input!!!

C

 

[K-amps]

Much better than 17-40L is Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 at the same price. See

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff

and

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1117411/0#10675636

HTH

The Tokina is a bit limited on reach

And does not take 77mm Filters

@$500 and clean condition, it is 20% below market... if you can try it and it is sharp at f5.6-f8, then go for it.

 

[V8Beast]

Yes, it's a good deal. I used to shoot with a 16-35, but sold it for a 17-40 since I never shoot wide open. I don't miss the extra stop one bit.

I used to own f/2.8 glass, but not anymore. Since I rarely aim for shallow DOF and with the incredible high ISO capabilities of modern DSLR's, fast glass is simply a luxury I don't need. Then Canon comes out with a new 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points that are sensitive to f/4, which makes owning f/2.8 glass even less important. The f/2.8 glass does make your e-wang look bigger, though, but I don't have a sig to list my gear in anyway ;D

Different strokes for different folks. If I were a bokeh addict, I'd just pick up a really fast prime.

 

[VASH1291]

This was my first L lens for the 7D and is still the go to lens for most situations.

And at $500 its a steal ;D

 

[canon816]

I own a Canon 17-40L. I have taken thousands of images with it and find it to be an outstanding lens. I almost never shoot wide open anyway. and with a wide lens like this f2.8 to f4 is not that much of a DOF benefit.

Ironically it is better optically then the 16-35, which is why I bought it.

You can find reviews for both of these lenses at slrgear.com

It works well with my polarizer but not very well with my 10 stop vari ND filter.

$500 is a good deal if it is in good shape with no element scratches or fungus.

I personally wouldn't buy a 16-35 over this lens even if money were no issue. The 17-40 is better.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you are up close in your kitchen at f/2.8, depth of field will probably be a huge issue, particularly for video. You might be better off cranking up the ISO and using a smaller aperture.

 

[Dylan777]

If your heart is set with 16-35 II, then save the money for it

If you think $500 is a good buy for 17-40 , then go for it and enjoy it now. Keep saving that money until you ready for 16-35 II, then sell 17-40.

Win-Win situation here

 

[awinphoto]

erm... plan on waiting for another $1000 on top of this to pick up the 16-35 II... It's only 1 stop slower, and seriously, on wide open, unless you're shooting motor cross or something like that, when would the 1 stop really buy you a shot when a F4 couldn't? Maybe weddings but even then 2.8 is kinda dicey... It's a very good lens overall and you wont regret it... and when you got the extra grand built up, sell the 17-40 and buy the new one. Keep it in good condition and it shouldn't depreciate too much. Plus if you want/need WA, its better getting that now then going however long without a WA option.