17-40 F4 or 17-35 F2.8

[MitchellB]

Which lens would you get

a new 17-40 or a used minty 17-35. basically the same price.

Oh and why???

[tim]

I'd get the faster F2.8 lens - I don't buy lenses slower than F2.8 any more.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Um..... guessing by 17-40, you mean the 17-40 f/4L and no clue what you mean by 17-35..... 17-35 Tamron? But.... that doesn't make sense..... used the tamron or any other 17-35 that I know of couldn't come close to the price of a new 17-40L...... are you talking about the 16-35 f/2.8????

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sorry, forgot to subscribe.:o

[Croasdail]

no - I believe he is refering to a canon L.... I have seen reference to a couple of these floating around.

[khiemluu]

16-35 F2.8L?? Assuming it is and you can get it for the same price as the 17-40 F4 L, can you buy me one as well? Unless they have inflated the price of the 17-40 F4 L :p.

Anyway, hard to say without know what type of subjects and what type of environments you will be shooting in.

If the optics were of the same quality then most definitely go for the 2.8 if you can get it at the same price as the F4.

[Eric DeCastro]

no 17-35L i don't think they make it anymore so it must be used for abuot 700.

[nosquare2003]

Do you need a larger aperture? If not, get the EF17-40/4.

One more issue, the EF17-40/4 (and EF16-35/2.8) can focus closer than EF17-35/2.8. According to Canon's specification, the closest focus distance of EF17-40/4 and EF16-35/2.8 are both 0.28m while EF17-35/2.8 is 0.42m.

[10Dennis]

Is there an optical difference between the 17-40 f/4 and the 17-35 f/2.8? I know the 17-40 is newer and its possible that they have improved the optics but the 17-35 has a 2.8 aperture which makes it attractive compared to the the 17-40 f/4. My question is, if someone is offering an older 17-35 f/2.8 at the price of a new 17-40 f/4, would it be practical to go with the former? You are in effect only gaining a bigger aperture (which is important to some, depending on what you shoot) and its second hand.

JDennis

[randyk]

The ef 17-35 is not as good as either the newer ef 16-35 or the ef 17-40. I would want to test it thoroughly before buying it. If its too soft at 2.8, you might as well have a sharp 4.0 lens in my book.

[MitchellB]

Thanks guys. I shouldn't have assumed and put canon lenses. Sorry my bad. The 17-35 2.8L was replaced with the 16-35 2.8L so yes it's an older model.
I may have found a used 17-40 though so I'm thinkin new or used.....prolly be the 17-40

[khiromu]

Depending on what you will use the lens for.. But for general purpose, I would suggest 17-40 because it's newer, probably better match with newer digital bodies, longer at the tele end, can focus closer. If you must have f/2.8, there is EF20-35/2.8L or Tokica version.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Go with the 17-40L then.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have the 17-40mm,.. but if the 17-35mm 2.8 was available for similar price I'd have grabbed the faster lens for sure!

Another advantage of the 17-40mm by the way is the weather sealing.. the older 17-35mm does nit have it.