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

RexxReviews

EOS M50
Sep 3, 2021
49
31
it was on sale on amazon and B&H photo yesterday for like $499 brand new so its possible considering how old it is.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,555
7,339
Canon USA is offering a rebate on it. Could be they won’t produce any more of them.
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,046
120
It is a great lens for APS-C, If you can live with the large size and heavy weight
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
It is a great lens for APS-C, If you can live with the large size and heavy weight
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... :)
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,807
2,107
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... :)
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...
 

Blue Zurich

The artist formerly known as slclick
Jan 22, 2022
202
321
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.
 

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
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...
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.
 

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
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.
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.
 

Blue Zurich

The artist formerly known as slclick
Jan 22, 2022
202
321
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.
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.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,807
2,107
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.
But why not a Tamron-Sigma alternative (for FF)?
 

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
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.
But why not a Tamron-Sigma alternative (for FF)?
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

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,807
2,107
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.
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...
 

Felix

Greetings from Germany
Nov 9, 2021
39
18
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...
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.