If there's 17-40 MkII, would it have a 82mm filter diameter?

[Nicholas]

We all know there is a rumour going on about the 17-40mm f4L Mark II. Eg.:[url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/01/ef-17-40-f4l-ii-cr3/]http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/01/ef-17-40-f4l-ii-cr3/[/url]


But if the case is that it has 82mm filter diameter, I'd better stick with the original 17-40.

It would be a pain to change all my 77mm filter collection to the 82mm ones!

<p class="justify"]Probably some of you wouldn't mind if you only have UV and polariser (and you do the rest in post-processing).
<p class="justify"]
Does anyone else worrying about the filter diameter size like I did?

[MVers]

I hate to be a wet blanket but the 17-40 will not be updated any time soon, I can almost guarentee you that. First, the lens was released in 2003--its relatively new. Second, since Nikon has just released the best UWA zoom to date, anyones good guess would point to Canon making an attempt to outperform it with a 14-24/2.8 variant of its own, which is also not very likely, at least not right away.

[peety3]

Will the 7D Mark IV have a print button? Sometimes, there's no point trying to predict the future.


In a previous hobby, I learned to budget 15-20% above the cost of various DJ/sound equipment for cases, cables, etc. I've translated that to budgeting 15-20% above the cost of a lens for filter(s) and cases.


I assume you believe in putting a UV filter on your lenses. I'm still a little torn. I'll also assume that you keep your CPL and any other filters in good condition when they're off camera.


If you're going to buy a lens that's just been released, you know it'll have great optics. In my opinion, it'd be silly to put a used filter on a brand-new design, newly-purchased lens, so I'd simply budget for a new UV filter as part of the lens purchase.


That should make the 17-40II decision a little less cloudy: factor in the extra $120 or so for a good UV filter when you consider the purchase price, and consider it just a part of the lens. Now compare the cost of the other filters you'd want/need to the bundled lens cost.

[Michael James]

We all know there is a rumour going on about the 17-40mm f4L Mark II.


It would be a pain to change all my 77mm filter collection to the 82mm ones!



Does anyone else worrying about the filter diameter size like I did?

I'd be surprised if Canon bumped this lens up to be the size of the 16-35mm f/2.8 L sized lens. I don't see the 17-40 needing that much glass and needing that larger filter size as a result. Actually, I don't see any reason for them at this point to launch a new 17-40. FWIW.

[Benjamin]

Same here, I really don't see any reason for Canon to update its 17-40/4L. Probably at this moment Canon has lots of issues greater than this to worry about...


Filter size wise, it's reasonable to be concerned if you need a lens which takes 82mm and your filter collection is 77mm... But in your case the 17-40/4L II lens with an 82mm filter thread may not even show up in the foreseeable future... I personally have the 16-35/2.8 II, but I only have a UV filter for its 82mm threadto date. 82mm filters are indeed expensive, especially the good ones!