Selling a 17-40mm f4L for...

<p>so i got a 17-40mm for free from a relative, and while i have been spoiled by L quality lenses, with this one being no different, this is my only lens and i definitely am not in desperate need of the quality that this lens can deliver. what i do need is more focal range. that being said, what would be a good choice? the money that will be used will be whatever i get for the 17-40mm. i originally wanted a 17-85mm (i had a 28-135mm before), but it seems like im in the price park of the 15-85mm. or even the 18-135mm would be okay with me. i would like to try to get one of those lenses plus a telephoto lens, but if the 15-85mm is worth the price then i will consider it. thanks for any input!</p>

<p>the 17-40 will be hard to beat the image quality of the 17-40 with anything cheaper. Why not purchase a telephoto lens that is starting at 70mm? Then you're only gap is 40-70... I choose to fill that gap with a 50mm prime lens.</p>

<p>the thing is, buying more lenses is far out of my reach right now, and will be for the foreseeable future. so i thought as im aware that nothing will beat the 17-40 in IQ, i don't really need that type of quality in my lenses right now. so why not use that lens to buy 2 lenses that would fit my needs?</p>

<p>oh and i also forgot to mention, will this chip in the lens show up in any photos? how much would it decrease the sale value?<br>

<img src="http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab94/shikikanzero/lens/DSC01519.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It might add an unusual flare, Or might induce a reduction of contrast a bit on some lighting situation, I'm not really sure. But I am sure it would reduce the resale value, Buy at about 10% in my estimation ,Sorry.</p>

<p>Trading a 17-40 in to finance a 15-85? Shudder...</p>

<p>I would guestimate B&H would give you 50% of their retail price for a pristine copy, and a bit less considering the chip. I would hang on to it, whatever you get.</p>

<p>I assume you have a Canon Rebel or 30D, 40D etc., right?<br />First you should try out the lens and determine for yourself whether it affects image quality. For someone to give it away I have to assume it does affect the quality. If it were pristine, you might get $600USD for it on craigslist. Since it is not (even if that chip has no effect on the image) you might get $400 simply based on the way the lens itself looks. If it does affect image quality you may get substantially less than $400 for it.<br />Either way, I'd just keep it and get the 55-250IS and both should serve you well for a good long time. If the chip affects the image quality, you can probably brush up the image in Photoshop in most cases.</p>

I am among those who found the 17-40 to be a less than compelling lens choice on cropped sensor cameras. (I own one

and like it on full frame.) if you value being able to cover a wide and useful focal length range on your camera with a

single lens, the 15-85 could be a great choice for you.

 

It is extremely important to keep in mind that the "lens quality" issue is a relative one - relative to what you will do with the

photographs, what and how you photograph, and so on. Among a group of lens choices that might all produce fine image

quality for your purposes, things like versatility, size, convenience, and price are likely much more important decision

points.

 

Dan

<p>What Dan said. There was a time when the 17~40 was a good choice for 1.6-factor by comparison with what else was available from Canon, namely the kit 18~55 and the not very exciting 17~85. Now that they have introduced the 17~55/2.8 and 15~85, the 17~40 should be allowed to revert to its designed role, as a FF UWA. Mine started like that with film bodies, served for a while as my 1.6-factor standard zoom, and now serves again as a UWA, first on a 5D and now a 5DII.</p>

<p>I agree with Dan and Robin re the 15-85 and 17-55 as being the lenses of choice but, whoa, it sounded like he was working with a budget and intended to add a long lens as well. Either of those choices plus just a modest long zoom like the 55-250 could require an additional $1,000 to spend even after he sells the 17-40.<br>

He said "the money that will be used will be whatever i get for the 17-40mm". Not likely in the 15-85 or 17-55 zone.</p>

<p>You'll probably want to keep the 17-40 as the price you get for it with the chip probably won't buy you a 15-85 or 17-55. If you keep it, you can save up a little money and buy the EF-S 55-250 IS, which would pair up nicely with you 17-40.<br>

Here's a link to my Flickr set using the XSi/450D and the EF-S 55-250 IS. This will give you some idea of the versatility of the 55-250 and the images I have been able to get as a hobbyist using this combination. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/</a><br>

Of course, selling the 17-40 as it is might get you enough money for the 18-135 or perhaps the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>The 17-40mm generally goes for around $600 used, that chip may take it down to about $400 or $450 if I had to guess. My original suggestion would have been to get the 17-85mm for around $250-300 used and a 70-200mm f/4L used for around $500. With the decrease in value that setup will require a little more saving, but I still think its the best setup for the money in your situation. I'd go ahead and get the 17-85mm and get the 70-200mm when you get the other 3 or $400.</p>

<p>thanks nathan, that sounds like a good idea. i guess ill try to decide between keeping the lens and just saving up for a 70-200 or selling it and going your route. thanks for all the replies!</p>

<p>The responses from Dan, Jeff and myself were really views about whether the 17~40 would be a good lens to get as a standard zoom on 1.6-factor; we don't think that is now a good move. Of course, in your case you already have one, and since it has slight visible damage to the front element, it will not sell as well as a clean copy would. So what you do does indeed depend on what resources you have available and what your priorities are, and in the circumstances there may be an argument for keeping the 17~40. It is certainly perfectly useable as a standard zoom on 1.6-factor and will give good image quality (even, I would hope, with a small chip on the front element) – it's the limited zoom range as lack of IS that make it look less attractive compared to the 17~55/2.8IS and 15~85. However, I think it is important as you build up a kit of lenses to work on the expectation that you will in due course replace the 17~40 (unless, of course, you move to FF).</p>

<p>Assuming the impact that created the chip on the front of the lens did not change alignment or affect edge to edge sharpness, the possibility of flare can be mitigated by painting the chip black with a felt tip/magic marker. Once done, there should be virtually no possibility of it affecting overall performance.</p>

<p>actually i was hoping to keep all lenses EF so i can use them on my film body. i think i will keep this 17-40.</p>

<p>Canon 17-40 F4L will keep its value well. Someone could probably get it refurbished or just have the front element replaced. Sine the L has no real value I would sell it you could get a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 new for what you get for the broken 17-40. Also look at lenses like Tokina and Sigma much cheaper and still really good lenses. I would get rid of the chipped lenses ASAP for as much as you can get for a lot of people they quality is just not that important if thats not what you really need.</p>