Patent: Canon 17-40 f/2.8-4L

[spinworkxroy]

The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...

Any idea how long will it take since patent release?

Not all patent get released..
Sometimes they patent it because they are testing it..doesn't mean they will ever release it..
Like hat many have mentioned…why the need for this lens when if you're going to pay so much more for it (i'm sure of that), just go get the 16-35 then..
It could just be one of Canon's "test" lenses that got patented and they're still deciding if they want to release it..i don't know…we might never see the light of it

 

[Heidrun]

Dont need a new 17-40. I need a 12-24 or 14-24. If its not with 2,8. Then i want it with 4,0 L is

 

[Jettatore]

How about a 12-40 f/4 or a 16-35 f/2 (I know next to nothing about lens construction so they probably are both impossible to build without weighing 50 pounds each)

 

[dunkers]

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this

The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.

why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?

+1
MTF charts aren't everything. If you're happy with the photos that it produces, then it is perfect your tastes.

 

[NWPhil]

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this

The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.

why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?

+1
MTF charts aren't everything. If you're happy with the photos that it produces, then it is perfect your tastes.

+1

now about the lens:
if a constant 2.8 would allow me to obtain good IQ at f/4, would be a deal, but not with variable aperture - and like others I would rather see a 14-24 2.8.

Maybe not so much of a need during daytime; for low light conditions and nighscapes, I can see the use.
I have the 17-40, and can't even recall using it at 40mm focal, but often I get down to f/4 and find myself still pushing the iso

 

[birdman]

All I know is the current 17-40 distorts pretty bad until about 19mm. My copy does at least. I would prefer wider, maybe 15-30mm, if that's even feasible, and has 77mm filter threads.

They're gonna milk the 16-35/2.8 until sales drop A LOT. At its current price, the only reason to buy is for a tiny bit wider angle and 2.8 aperture (over the 17-40). I hope they will make a stellar UWA...and of course given their newer lens prices don't expect one for under $1,800.0

 

[awinphoto]

The 17-40 is supposed to be better on the wide end than the long end... while I would love an update i do have a few concerns...

A) this lens sharply increasing in price, 16-35 II, 70-200 2.8 II, 5dIII, etc...
B) like many newer updates, the lens becoming an 82mm rather than 77mm...
C) not really jiving over the variable aperture aspect of this lens... I would love a 2.8 option, but 2.8 on the wide end really isn't as much as a benefit as it is on the long end... But i dont know if it's even possible to have F4 on the 17 end and 2.8 for the 40 end... Kinda seems simpler to have a constant aperture, unless that will increase costs even more.

 

[Dylan777]

The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...

Any idea how long will it take since patent release?

If the price is btw $1400-$1600.... 16-35 II seems to be a better choice<f2.8 end to end>. I would ONLY consider IF this lens has ZERO distortion at 17mm on FF.

 

[K-amps]

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this

The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.

why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?

I had 2 17-40's one new and one recently used from ebay. I sold the new one unimpressed... then after a year decided due to filter sizes (77mm), it will go well with my other lenses, so I got one from ebay...

I could not be happier. It is small, sharp, wide... and a great value for the money. It can take some amazing shots...

 

[plutonium10]

I think the 17-40 is a good bang per buck lens, but it's getting old and the optical quality seems to be hit or miss with lots of copy variation. I'm waiting for the MK II, and if it's still constant f4 that's just fine with me. I almost never set my f4-5.6 lenses wider than 5.6 anyway because I just hate having the aperture change as I zoom. And besides, the long end is where you need wider aperture.