PDA

View Full Version : 17-35L Lens

grandadraymond
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 03:06
could anyone tell me if the 17-35L will fit the 400D please:oops:
Hermeto
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 03:09
Yes.
sumandy
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 03:28
yes.. but 17-35 quality is really bad!
StewartR
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 05:32
yes.. but 17-35 quality is really bad!Says who?

Not Photo.net (http://photo.net/equipment/canon/17-35)
Not Fred Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=152&sort=7&cat=27&page=1)
Not Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml) - they say the 16-35 is better, but they don't think the 17-35 is "really bad".
Not Photography Review (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/canon/PRD_83411_3128crx.aspx)
ggw2000
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 08:31
yes.. but 17-35 quality is really bad!

5 posts and an expert already. Nothing to backup statement. hmmm.. Gerry
-MasterChief-
11th of May 2007 (Fri), 08:36
the 17-35 was the predecessor to the 16-35. they are optically the same, the 16-35 has slightly faster focusing (newer USM) and a 1mm advantage on the wide end.

and yes, it will fit your 400D perfectly! :D :D :D
kevin_c
12th of May 2007 (Sat), 06:27
5 posts and an expert already. Nothing to backup statement. hmmm.. Gerry

He/She could have one post and very well be an expert - post count does not = knowledge - Mine is fairly high and I talk garbage sometimes :-)
I agree that a statement to backup the comment would be useful though...

OP - as (almost) everyone has said, yes it will fit and work fine.
steved110
12th of May 2007 (Sat), 06:48
All EF lenses will fit ALL Canon Eos cameras, film or digital.

Some older third party lenses don't work on newer bodies. But they still fit.

EF-S lenses ONLY work on the original DRebel ( 300D ) , XT (350D) , XTi ( 400D), 20D and 30D
clengster_77
12th of May 2007 (Sat), 08:40
not to hijack your thread but is this a 2.8 or a 4 like the 17 - 40?
calicokat
12th of May 2007 (Sat), 08:54
Si ;)
kevin_c
12th of May 2007 (Sat), 08:58
not to hijack your thread but is this a 2.8 or a 4 like the 17 - 40?

The 17-35L has an f/2.8 max aperture
cjm
13th of May 2007 (Sun), 00:41
I had the 17-35L and the 17-40L at the same time last year. I have to say, I kept the 17-40L and sold the 17-35L. Although the 35 was a full stop faster, it was slower and you had to be further away for it to focus. The build of the 40 is better then the 35 but the IQ is the same pretty muche.

I personally believe though that the 17-35 is too much money for what it does and either buy a used 16-35 MKI for a bit more or buy a 17-40L lens and save money.
pfogle
13th of May 2007 (Sun), 06:45
FWIW, I tried a s/h 17-35L while looking for a wide zoom. In this case, the quality was bad, worse on one side than the other, so it might have been knocked at some time. I sent it back.

In the end, I got a new 17-40/4L and I'm very pleased with it...