Canon 17-40L f4 lens

[Billy Griffin]

Selling my 17-40L lens. Absolute mint condition - sells for about $650 new.
Asking $500 firm. PM if interested. Do have a 77mm haze filter for it as well, I'll throw in for free.

[Jeremy Ludin]

That's one helluva deal! Just to let interested buyers know...I paid almost $800 for mine brand new. Fantastic lens.

[Billy Griffin]

I paid $799 for it back in November when I purchased it at Rainier Photo in Seattle. It's a solid lens!
I'm wanting to upgrade to the 16-35 f 2.8 due to a lot of low-light shooting I'm doing, so I need to apply this money to the new one.
This makes a great all-purpose, wide-angle chase lens for storm structure and landscapes.

[Billy Griffin]

Lens is still available.

[Stuart Robinson]

I will say that the 17- 40 is a GREAT workhorse lens for the canon and stormchasing - I am surprised that you are selling it ??

[Brandon Goforth]

The 16-35 is suppose to be a really good lens, and costs twice the price of a 17-40. I'd like to see just how big of a difference there really is though. Ehhh, kind of getting off topic here. Billy is there any way you can compare the 2 lenses in the equipment forum once you get the 16-35? Just wondering how big of a difference the upgrade will be.

[Scott Taylor]

I think there's a good write-up comparing the 17-40 and 16-35 on luminous landscape somewhere. You might want to check it out and reconsider. That extra stop isn't really worth the doubled price IMO. With the ISO performance of Canon's dslrs these days, you can easily get that stop back.

Most low-light storm photography still wouldn't call for f/2.8, since you would likely tripod and use slower shutter speeds. Obviously lightning is shot stopped well down from f/2.8.

I use my 17-40 extensively for lightning... wouldn't give it up for anything... even a 16-35. =)

Hope you don't mind me throwing the opinion in. Good luck!

Scott

[Aaron Kennedy]

I'm drueling over the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I'd dump my 17-40 in an instant for that, but its $1k price tag is steep.

[Billy Griffin]

Keep in mind, a lot of work I'm doing with the 16-35 f2.8 is indoor photography, not really just for storm chasing. For chasing, no IMO, the 2.8 wouldn't be worth the extra $. But, if you're doing fashion, corporate, etc. - where you need that "crisp," low-light fast lens, I've been really happy with the 16-35 2.8. A big difference from the f4 for those purposes only. Outdoor photography, the 17-40 f4 still rocks!

[Billy Griffin]

Took the plunge on recent lense purchases, so I still have the following for sale:

Canon 17 - 40mm L f4

Canon 24 - 105mm L f4 IS

Both lenses are in in absolute mint condition and are relatively new. I have UV/Haze filters for both and believe I still have the boxes. Still under full warranty. Purchased at Glazer's Camera in Seattle, WA. Full USA Canon warranty. PM if interested.