Is this lense still good?

Hi all,
I have a Canon 17-35mm 2.8L lense which was made in February 1996. Is this still considered a good lense, or are the more modern similar zoom lenses that much optically better than this lense?
Thanks for any advice

Here you go. Lots of opinions for you:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=152&sort=7&cat​=27&page=1

Many thanks for the link sir.

It ain't no good, but I'll give you a dollar for it anyway.

the 16-35 2.8L is certainly a significantly better lens in pretty much every way (IQ wise) from what ive seen and heard. the 17-35 definitly isnt a bad lens though.

Hi Ben

I bought that lens used back in the summer to maybe replace my 17-40 f4 L lens because like fun I will be buying the 16-35 anytime soon or ever. However I got the lens, went out shooting in the forrest and at a park for the afternoon and by the time I got home I knew I was not keeping this lens. The focus was slower, the distance to focus was further, it seemed slower, cheaper build, and not as sharp as the 17-40 L. So I sold it in less then 24 hours of getting it and it was out of here.

If it was not being sold fo $800 to $900 used I would say it is a ok lens but at that price it is not worth it. Either buy a 16-35 or buy a 17-40 L used they are a lot better deal. For sure.

Thanks for the replies
Chris I have had my 17-35 for 10 years. It was bought for my work when I used to work at Brands Hatch the racing track,where I took photos of drivers in their cars. I was given the lense when I was given the boot in 2002!

I was just wondering if it now shows its age in IQ, sharpness etc, and it seems to some that it does. But its served me well over the years.
I have to keep this lense as I cant afford a newer one Never mind.

It's a good lens, I would not be in any hurry to replace it witha newer 16-35 unless I had already filled out all the other lenses I was interested in!