Old Canon 20-35 2.8L vs 17-40 f4L

A while ago I almost bought the old 20-35 2.8L but doubted then when seeing some testshots with extremely bad corners and on the last minute I stayed with 17-40L.

Strange if you ook at the lens sample database, the few 3 pages of examples seem nice :
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=515​581&page=2

Anyone still works with the old 20-35 2.8L and satisfied ?

I doubt that pics at the size in the example threads will tell you much about the lens's sharpness. And for that matter, sharpness isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm really happy with my 17-40 and I know many complain about its sharpness at the corners. At normal print sizes, it delivers fantastic results.

Will Canon still service the 20-35?

Personally I'm still using my 17-40L. Two weeks ago I went to B&H with the intention of either buying a 24-70/2.8L MK II [I figured if they miraculously had it in stock, it was a "sign" that I should buy one] or the 16-35 mk II as a consolation prize. The B&H sales guy convinced me that the 16-35 wouldn't give me anything that I didn't already have with my 17-40 and to save my money. He didn't think the 16-35 Mk II was perfect enough and that I should wait until my needs change enough to justify buying one.

If you already have the 17-40, and it looks as though you have owned both versions of the 16-35 2.8, why bother?