Would you trade someone your 17-40 f/4L + 70-200mm f/4L non is for a 70-200mm f/2.8 non is? Just curious if it would be worthwhile to gain some more light while losing a lens.

Thanks!

No I wouldn't.

But that's simply because I own only the 17-40L and a 70-200 f4 IS lens. I PERSONALLY do not need the extra stop the 70-200 f2.8 offers, but really do need the 17-40. You should really consider what you need the extra stop for.

Can you afford to give up the 17-40? Meaning, do you have other lenses that cover this focal range? Do you even need this focal range?

How important is the extra stop to you? If it's that important and you can afford to give up the 17-40L, then it seems like a no brainer to me.

The ball is in your court sir!

Best of luck,

Jason

Absolutely not! I would never give up my 17-40 f4 and like Jason, I have both lenses.

Sheila

Appreciate it guys. I do need my 17-40, that's my dilemma. Thank you for your help in deciding.

traded

17-40/24-70 2.8 and 70-200 F4 IS are enough for me.

hyunk702 wrote:
Would you trade someone your 17-40 f/4L + 70-200mm f/4L non is for a 70-200mm f/2.8 non is? Just curious if it would be worthwhile to gain some more light while losing a lens.


Never, because the 17-40 is just too important for me, since it is my landscape lens, and I have a strong interest in landscape. I found that the 17-40 + 70-200 set up is perfect for many many situations. Right now, I am in the process of replacing a 70-200/2.8 with a 70-200/4 since I do not use f/2.8 much if at all. But in all cases, I will keep my 17-40.

that would be absolutely crazy. I really cant see ever getting rid of my 17-40 its just too good. That would hardly ever be a worthwhile trade

I don't have 17-40 but I do have tamron 17-35. I sold my sigma 70-200 and Canon 300 IS to get 70-200 IS... would not get rid of the wa lens unless planing to replace it soon.

T

Sometimes you buy a lens and realize several years later that the idea of replacing it has never crossed your mind. That to me is a great test of how valuable a lens is to me. That is the situation wth my 17-40mm f4 lens. It is not my most used lens but it is one that I have never considered replacing.

Dick

A good alternative to the 70-200/2.8 non-IS would be to get 100/2 and 200/2.8L primes.
My guess is that the convenience you would give up would be compensated by the
excellent IQ those two primes would give you, and also the extra speed of the 100/2.
About the same price either way, but I know I like those primes and don't plan to sell them.

I have a 17-40mm F4L and the 70-200mm F2.8 non IS. The 700-200 is little short of stunning but i think you need to consider what you will use it for. If you shoot moving stuff (sports) then maybe the F2.8 will over a real upgrade over the F4. If static objects are your thing then probably not.

Also consider the weight - I use my F2.8 a lot handheld and the 1.3Kg weight is really noticeable both in how long i can hold the camera on target and how steady i can hold it. I do wonder sometimes if i should have bought the F4 IS instead.

Personally i wouldn't make the trade you're suggesting, as you lose a lot more (the 17-40mm) than you gain. Maybe save up some more pennies and trade up the F4 to the IS version?