2nd hand 16-35mm vs. new 17-40mm

Hello people,
I know this has been asked before around here and I red some threads on this issue, but I will still ask since I want answers from people who either have both or have used both lens!
So please help, I have an opportunity to buy a 2nd hand 16-35mm f2.8 (the older one) for around 900$. After I checked a bit, a new 17-40 f4.0 costs almost the same, some 300$more or so.
How many of you would recommend the 2nd hand 16-35mm and if so, what are the risks when buying the 2nd hand stuff? All my gear was new when I purchased it.
I do not shoot landscape or architecture, I shoot events & people(fashion etc). I tested the 16-35mm two days ago on a wedding I worked. The place had some small & tight corners, so the 16mm did a good job I think.
I am just not sure how often I will use the f2.8 when doing what I do. It deforms the perspective a lot already and too much DOF there doesn't add much.
I kinda think 17mm f4.0 will be OK too, I am not sure.
Now I have a 24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f4.0

Thank you all!

I think you would be better off with the 16-35. For what you are shooting the faster maximum aperture will be useful.

you are good to go with your 24-70 & 70-200 combo.

IVOlution wrote in post #13703444
So please help, I have an opportunity to buy a 2nd hand 16-35mm f2.8 (the older one) for around 900$.

If it was MK II I wouldn't second question it, older 16-35 vs 17-40 is not such a clear choice.

I have a 17-40 and have in general been pleased with it. It's soft in the corners at 17mm and wide open, but I've heard that the 16-35 mk I is no better. However, f2.8 is better than f4, so if the price is close and the 16-35 is in good condition, I'd say go with that. I've bought several lenses second hand and have had no issues with any of them.

Yeah... Tough if you need the speed I guess 16-35 but its not as sharp as the 17-40 for f4 on. I just got a 17-40L from a nice guy and its a very sharp copy. I always buy used on FM or POTN. Great ppl. You have to decide what you need. If you need the stop but love the best IQ get the 16-35 II otherwise pull the trigger on a 17-40

Tokina 12-24 anyone?

THANK YOU kind people for your advice, I haven't decided yet but one thing is sure....I always prefer new stuff, so I am really holding myself here.
cheers

JeffreyG wrote in post #13703461
I think you would be better off with the 16-35. For what you are shooting the faster maximum aperture will be useful.

patrickf117 wrote in post #13703520
you are good to go with your 24-70 & 70-200 combo.

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #13703586
If it was MK II I wouldn't second question it, older 16-35 vs 17-40 is not such a clear choice.

paulkaye wrote in post #13703626
I have a 17-40 and have in general been pleased with it. It's soft in the corners at 17mm and wide open, but I've heard that the 16-35 mk I is no better. However, f2.8 is better than f4, so if the price is close and the 16-35 is in good condition, I'd say go with that. I've bought several lenses second hand and have had no issues with any of them.

jerbear00 wrote in post #13703892
Yeah... Tough if you need the speed I guess 16-35 but its not as sharp as the 17-40 for f4 on. I just got a 17-40L from a nice guy and its a very sharp copy. I always buy used on FM or POTN. Great ppl. You have to decide what you need. If you need the stop but love the best IQ get the 16-35 II otherwise pull the trigger on a 17-40

camera dude wrote in post #13703904
Tokina 12-24 anyone?

FF = 16-35L

1.6x = 17-55 IS

The 16-35 v1 is still a great lens and f2.8 makes more sense to me than 4.0. It's the better option of the two IMHO.

Forgot to add the newer Tokina 16-28 2.8.

The only reason to go with the 16-35 is if you need 2.8; I tested it and the 17-40 here a few weeks ago off my tripod and the 16-35 was not $1000 better.