Canon EF 17-35mm 2.8L - anyone have an opinion on this lens?

[fetching]

I haven't seen much about this lens, wondering what people think of it. I might be able to get a used one for about 700....would that be a good deal?

[Andy_T]

Hi Fetching,

take a look at these reviews on Luminous Landscape:
17-35/2.8 vs 16-35/2.8 (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml)
16.35/2.8 vs. 17-40/4.0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

I don't have hands-on experience with any of the lenses mentioned, but from reading the comparisons, I consider 2 possibilities
- 17-35/2.8 might not be tack sharp wide open (at least not as sharp as the 16-35)
- 17-40/4.0 might be sharper from f/4.0 onwards.

Considering that for the price of the used 17-35/4.0 you get a new 17-40/4.0 with warranty and everything, it might be the safer alternative. If the main advantage of the 16-35/2.8 is the possibility to use f/2.8 and this is not that great on the 17-35/2.8, it might not have many advantages.

If it's a lens from somebody you know, consider it, if it's an eBay auction where you might get a lemon, better don't do it.

FYI: On eBay, in regular intervals used 20-35/2.8 L lenses get offered that typically go for about $400~450. According to http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html, those are supposed to be even better optical (but of course not as wide).

Best regards,
Andy

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Newer technology is out my friend, that lens is ooollllddddddd news. The link Andy provided shows that quite well.

For 700, go get a brand new 17-40L. You wont regret it.;)

[fetching]

thanks for the advice, makes sense. :)

[mdr]

Unless you really need the 1 stop advantage, don't waste your money and go for a 17-40mm f4 L.

[fetching]

yeah it was the extra stop that appealed to me, but i would prefer to buy new and get a warranty, etc. so it's the 17-40.