So many people selling 17-40

T

trencheel303

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,888
Edit My Images
No
no longer required
 
Last edited:
I guess a lot of people own one as it's such a lot of lens for not too much money (well relatively not much).

That's maybe a dangerous thing because once you start getting L glass your bank balance soon goes down. :lol:
 
I had one.. was amazed at the quality.. loved it... then I sold it to help fund a 24-70L and didnt really get on with that... I am now back to owning the 17-40 and i wont be parting wiht it this time... I would say people arnt getting rid because the lens is poor or anything like that... Its my business so I tend to go for the best tools for the job and like I say.. keeping the 17-40 :)
 
I have a 17-40 and toyed with the idea of selling. The reason being I don't shoot many landscapes lately. But the reason I still have it is I know what superb images I've had with this lens, and therefore could not bring myself to part with it as I knew a day would come when i'd probably buy it back.
 
thanks everyone.
 
The other thing I like about it is on a crop body it's a nice walkaround lens with a bit wider lower end. I feel it's quite a useful range on a 1.6x crop.
 
I use one also and would be lost without it.
On FF its fantastic and although at first the 17-40 range might seem a little limited on FF you learn very quickly to work with it.
I have been tempted many times with the 24-70 or 24-105 but in all honesty i know i would miss the 17 to 24 more than i would like the 40 to 70 or 40 to 105 ranges.
 
Like everyone has said good build quality and IQ , i sold mine when i went full frame as i found it too wide most of the time (for me) and replaced it with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which gave me a similar FOV pre FF and very similar IQ but the build quality isn't as good and its slower to focus.
 
I just bought one myself.

Maybe it's because it's a good walkabout range on a crop. But when they change to full frame they find it is too wide for their liking and sell it to fund something else.

Fortunately, i want wide. :D
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Maybe it's because it's a good walkabout range on a crop. But when they change to full frame they find it is too wide for their liking and sell it to fund something else.
Click to expand...
I was using a 7D 1.6x crop but now use 1D at 1.3x I am only keeping the 17-40 because I am getting a 24-70 to go with it. On it's own on a 1.3 crop or FF I think the 17-40 is too wide for standard use, but I'm sure it will be great alongsied the 24-70.
 
17-40L is fantastic lens, on a FF body it is crazy wide but fun and still sharp. I have owned 2 and sold 2, reason is fund other things. I now have a sigma 15-30 as cover until I am rich enough to get another 17-40 on board.

The only reason it is the 1st one to sell is that it holds its price and has no trouble selling.
 
I have one and keep thinking about selling it as I hardly every use the wide end and have a 28-70 as my main portrait lens... it's not been on my camera for months now. However everytime I think about selling it I put it back on the camera and realise that when I need the wide end I'm pleased to have it. I have pondered selling it and getting a cheaper wide angle (something like the Sigma 17-35) but I know I'd miss the quality of the 17-40.
 
I sold mine as it just wasnt getting used, and it wouldnt fit in with my plans to go "beyond the darkide"...
 
I've been looking for one and haven't seen any for sale since I started using TP again.

I did start a thread about it and got told it was a waste of time on a 1.6 crop though.

I'm considering going mad and buying the EF-S 17-55 f2.8, but I do like price of the 17-40.

It doesn't seem to get rave reviews, but people who own them like them.
 
trapper501 said:
I did start a thread about it and got told it was a waste of time on a 1.6 crop though.
Click to expand...
I would disagree that it's a waste of time. It might depend what you want to do with it. On a 1.6x crop it's wide but not super wide angle. If you want super wide have a look at the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20. If you want a versatile walk about lens that is a little wider, much better build and image quality than the kit lenses then the 17-40 is a great way to go.
 
It was specifically an upgrade to my 18-55 kit lens I was after, so really a better walk around lens.
 
I sold mine and regret it. But I simply wasn't using it, so why keep it? I own about 8 other lenses, and use 7 of them regularly. I just never found myself in situations where I would want to use the wide end.
 
trapper501 said:
It was specifically an upgrade to my 18-55 kit lens I was after, so really a better walk around lens.
Click to expand...

In the Canon camp, I'd say your options are the 17-40, 15-85 or, for a bit more dosh, the 17-55 2.8. I went for the 15-85 as the range suited me more than the 17-40 and I don't personally need the speed of a 2.8.
 
I have a 17-40 and like any L glass it is an amazing lens, fills in nicely at the bottom end without being too wide.

You need to make sure you hadle them with care - mine is so sharp, you'll cut yourself! :)
 
I must admit I've only recently noticed the 15-85, I thought there was a 17-85 now there seems to be both. Is this a newer lens?
 
Mine gets used most of all my lenses - it's a great walk about lens.
 
Probably because it's one of the cheapest, 'best' lenses around and it's most people's entry into L territory, along with one of the 70-200s. Suppose with so many people moving to FF, they then chop in the 17-40 for the 24-70.
 
They do seem to hold their price, you can buy them new for not much over £500 but people on here expect to get nearly £450 when they are 3 or 4 years old.
 
It's is a stop-gap lens

1 - It is not Fast at 4.0, like the 16-35 2.8 IS
2 - It is not at a useful range at 24-70 when you go FF
3 - Its not long enough or fast enough if you can afford the 17-55 2.8 IS, if you stay on crop

There are better lenses, both on crop or FF.
 
Last edited:
I had one - and loved it on FF and 1.3 crop. Because I also want to shoot low light indoor and no flash (National Trust properties, Churches etc) I sold mine to fund a 16-35L. Sometimes I read that the 17-40 is the sharper of the two wide open and whilst I could be persuaded to believe it, I have no regrets about going for the faster lens.
Maybe if I had a 5DII with megazillion high ISO capability I'd think differently.

There's nothing wrong with the 17-40 but if you don't want mega-wide you may find it frustrating.
 
i think it's just some people upgrade to the 24-70mm f2.8 and then the 17-40mm becomes redundant as the only use for it is that 7mm gain on the wide end however that equates moving about 2 or 3 feet back so it doesn't really matter.
 
There may be better lenses at twice the price but the 17-40 is a magnificent landscape lens, on a cropped body or not.
Way too much over analysis done on here.
I've used it on a 30d, 1d and EOS 3. I shoot wild people portraits with it as well.
As for landscapes and needing 2.8, which you get at twice the price for a 16-35, I dont recall ever shooting a landscape at 2.8, so no need for me.

As to the original question, I think Marac nailed it, it holds its price well as a second hand lens.
 
mastertrinity said:
i think it's just some people upgrade to the 24-70mm f2.8 and then the 17-40mm becomes redundant as the only use for it is that 7mm gain on the wide end however that equates moving about 2 or 3 feet back so it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I frequently use mine at 17mm (FF 5D) and a lot of the time I don't have the luxury of another couple of feet behind me.

Then again, I'm using it in an urban/architectural context, not landscapes.

The only thing I might replace it with is a 16-35L, but I don't really need a wide f/2.8 zoom that often.

edit: and as mentioned earlier, it does make a useful walk-about on a crop body. It took me a while to work out how to use it when I went from a 300D to a 5D. It didn't get much use for twelve months after. Now I wouldn't be without it.
 
Last edited:
chewyuk said:
...Way too much over analysis done on here....
Click to expand...
Too true. Just because it ain't f/2.8 it's deemed 'slow' and because it's cheap, it's deemed as a quick fix. I loved using them and if it was available to fit Nikon, I'd have one now.....
 
I've got mine as a stop gap until I've got the funds for a P/X with a 16-35L... or that was the plan. I'd been led to believe by the reports and reviews that the 17-40L was merely 'so-so' as an L glass but nothing could be further from the truth. It's a very good lens from the few times I've used it, I shoot in nightclubs and stuff so we'll see if the f/4 can cut it there - If it can I see no reason to get the 16-35,
 
adsayer said:
It's a very good lens from the few times I've used it, I shoot in nightclubs and stuff so we'll see if the f/4 can cut it there - If it can I see no reason to get the 16-35,
Click to expand...

Put it this way, to get this shot. Flash bounce off a BLACK ceiling.

5Dii
1/40th
ISO 3200
F/2.8



If you lose a stop you are looking at 6400 ISO. I push the 5Dii with the 16-35L to its limit all the time, I WANT to background lit, not pitch black. F/4 is not fast enough, I can just about get away with 2.8. And in that wedding, it's lit better than most nightclubs.

p.s. I seldom shoot landscapes.

This is as close as I am going to get for landscapes, shot on 24mm on the 24-70L at 2.8.



But if you don't need 2.8, no need to upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Put it this way, to get this shot. Flash bounce off a BLACK ceiling.

5Dii
1/40th
ISO 3200
F/2.8
If you lose a stop you are looking at 6400 ISO. I push the 5Dii with the 16-35L to its limit all the time, I WANT to background lit, not pitch black. F/4 is not fast enough, I can just about get away with 2.8. And in that wedding, it's lit better than most nightclubs.

p.s. I seldom shoot landscapes.

This is as close as I am going to get for landscapes, shot on 24mm on the 24-70L at 2.8.

But if you don't need 2.8, no need to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Going to disagree with you there about the lighting between a wedding and most nightclubs Raymond but cheers though :D
 
adsayer said:
Going to disagree with you there about the lighting between a wedding and most nightclubs Raymond but cheers though :D
Click to expand...

I meant THAT wedding. :)

I want more light so much i am getting a 35L...it'll be here on Monday, in time for my next wedding. :love:
 
oh right lol!

I should have elaborated on my original statement. Yeah I've got a couple of f/2.8's and faster should I be left with next to no ambient but the 17-40 mm range I use exclusively with a flash so I can rely on the shutter to obtain the correct ambient, the aperture less so of importance. My only reasoning for having the f/2.8 is the more sensitive AF but even that isn't entirely necessary since the onboard flash is beaming out redness.
 
I'm certainly considering getting one - Most of my stuff is landscape type shots, which it'll be admirable for on the EOS-3, plus it may not be the ideal crop sensor lens, but it's a damned sight better than the kit 18-55 IS i've got at the moment on the EOS450D. For the middle ground, I'll stick with my 28-105 USM, at least until I've completed phase 2 of upgrades - the 70-200 f4 L. As I say, mostly I shoot landscape stuff - not noted for being fast moving, so I'm not desperate for 2.8 glass - more concerned with clarity/sharpness/weatherproofness tbh.
 
Sure you can rely on the shutter (slower) to get more ambient. That is what i do, and still do when i shoot using a compact in 400ISO. 1/5 of a second. But people move and you get Lightstreaks across the photo. That does look cool, especially in a nightclub shot but also unpredictable and annoying when it is across someone's face.

I am not slating the 17-40, i am just saying, for me, I need 2.8 and for me, the 17-40 would have been a stop gap. It is also why i got a 16-35L MK1, paid around £600 for it secondhand. So it didn't hurt the pocket so much.
 
I have one I am looking to sell on. Had it up on Ebay a couple of times on buy it now and best offer and was annoyed at the downright cheeky offers I was getting. I would rather use it as a doorstop than let someone have it for a pittance. I had just bought a 16-35 so no more need for the 17-40. I am considering bartering it for some studio time now.
 
trapper501 said:
I've been looking for one and haven't seen any for sale since I started using TP again.

I did start a thread about it and got told it was a waste of time on a 1.6 crop though.

I'm considering going mad and buying the EF-S 17-55 f2.8, but I do like price of the 17-40.

It doesn't seem to get rave reviews, but people who own them like them.
Click to expand...

I should just watch the wanted section and then hijack a wanted thread like you did on my 1.4 Extender wanted ad, which i now see the mods have removed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top