New ef20-35L Would you buy it?

Hey everyone, i have seen a ef20-35L advertised as new but old stock, dont ask me where its been all this time. I wanted the opinion of forum members regarding this lens, chances are some of you have owned or used this lens. I already have the 17-40L but there are occasions, albeit rare, where i would like an extra stop (festivals etc) and i cannot justify the price of a 16-35L. So my question is this, is the 20-35L worth buying? is it so old that i would be disappointed by the images it would produce?
I have seen it listed for £270 as new, ebay prices are half this with a day to go on auction for what appears to be a tatty copy.

I guess what i am really getting at is, would the £280 be better put toward a 50d with digic4?

Any thoughts would be welcomed.

Thanks in advance, A.

I'd almost want one that was used rather than a lens that has sat unused for 12 years. A lot of machinery needs a work out from time to time to properly function, and a lens that hasn't been powered up in at least 12 years (the 17-35 f/2.8L replaced the 20-35 in 1996) would worry me a bit. Of course, it could also be a very, very good deal.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #6441861
Hey everyone, i have seen a ef20-35L advertised as new but old stock, dont ask me where its been all this time. I wanted the opinion of forum members regarding this lens, chances are some of you have owned or used this lens. I already have the 17-40L but there are occasions, albeit rare, where i would like an extra stop (festivals etc) and i cannot justify the price of a 16-35L. So my question is this, is the 20-35L worth buying? is it so old that i would be disappointed by the images it would produce?
I have seen it listed for £270 as new, ebay prices are half this with a day to go on auction for what appears to be a tatty copy.

I guess what i am really getting at is, would the £280 be better put toward a 50d with digic4?

Any thoughts would be welcomed.

Thanks in advance, A.

save up for the 16-35L or pick up a tamron 17-35 if you aren't shooting FF. you'll be paying a premium for an old, unsupported lens with a limited focal range to get that extra stop.

ed rader

I'd pass. If you do not like it, it has little resale value.

Check out the 17-50 2.8 tamron looks better then the 18-55 kit lens sharper that is . Or save up for the 16-35 2.8L . Sean .L

As you already have a 17-40L - you are spending a lot to get an extra stop, on a limited focal range.

this lens was not as good as the 16-35 I (which replaced it) , which is not as good as the 17-40L, which is not as good as the 16-35 II

So you are looking at spending a fair chunk of cash for an older lens with limited technical support if there are any problems, just to gain that stop. I don't think there will be any problems it being unused for 12 years - these things don't seize up or grow fungus that easily - though I'd want a VERY good look at it before committing.

I'd pass, frankly, and use the cash on something else.

No FF there are plenty of other options. I think a used 16-35 MkI is quite reasonable, if bought for a FF as the crop equiv is not much less and the Canon is an L.

But to go back to what I was saying, I wouldn't get it unless I got to see it first.