So many people selling 17-40

I'll just offer people what I think is a fair price and they can take it or leave it.

I'm either going to buy a ef-s 17-55 f2.8 or the ef-s 15-85 I think. I'm concerned I'll find the 40mm a bit too short, though I'd have been happy at the 17mm end.
 
Yellowduke said:
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.
Click to expand...

ill be interested in it mate.. if you would like to list it so we can do a deal it will be great!
 
specialman said:
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.....
Click to expand...

It's a shame Nikon haven't jumped on the f/4 pro glass bandwagon yet. I think it's the way forward, personally. If one really wants a paper thin DOF on a subject that's three miles away, pick up a prime or two.

To me, a 17-40 and a flash gun just seems like a killer combo (both will soon be in my kit bag and on the camera a lot), and still doesn't come near the expense of a 16-35 alone. Not only that but the long end of the 17-40 is just about entering 'normal' focal length territory on an FF camera, whereas the 16-35 is still wide even at the long end.

Swings and roundabouts I think.
 
f4 as apposed to 2.8 isnt so much of a problem anymore if you ahve a camera capable of handling high iso better.. I use mine wiht and without flash for excellent results anywhere
 
trencheel303 said:
It's a shame Nikon haven't jumped on the f/4 pro glass bandwagon yet. I think it's the way forward, personally. If one really wants a paper thin DOF on a subject that's three miles away, pick up a prime or two.

To me, a 17-40 and a flash gun just seems like a killer combo (both will soon be in my kit bag and on the camera a lot), and still doesn't come near the expense of a 16-35 alone. Not only that but the long end of the 17-40 is just about entering 'normal' focal length territory on an FF camera, whereas the 16-35 is still wide even at the long end.

Swings and roundabouts I think.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. They've got that wonderful 300mm f/4 and the 12-24mm f/4, but I'm struggling to think of a walkabout lens that's low cost but sports pro-build quality and glass. 16-35 is just too much......
 
Well I got a 17-40 in the post today. What a lens! It reminds me of my old friend the Sigma 10-20 EX. Very solid and the zoom / focus rings are so smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top