Canon EF 17-35mm 2.8L - anyone have an opinion on this lens?

I haven't seen much about this lens, wondering what people think of it. I might be able to get a used one for about 700....would that be a good deal?

Hi Fetching,

take a look at these reviews on Luminous Landscape:
17-35/2.8 vs 16-35/2.8
16.35/2.8 vs. 17-40/4.0

I don't have hands-on experience with any of the lenses mentioned, but from reading the comparisons, I consider 2 possibilities
- 17-35/2.8 might not be tack sharp wide open (at least not as sharp as the 16-35)
- 17-40/4.0 might be sharper from f/4.0 onwards.

Considering that for the price of the used 17-35/4.0 you get a new 17-40/4.0 with warranty and everything, it might be the safer alternative. If the main advantage of the 16-35/2.8 is the possibility to use f/2.8 and this is not that great on the 17-35/2.8, it might not have many advantages.

If it's a lens from somebody you know, consider it, if it's an eBay auction where you might get a lemon, better don't do it.

FYI: On eBay, in regular intervals used 20-35/2.8 L lenses get offered that typically go for about $400~450. According to http://www.photozone.d​e/8Reviews/index.html, those are supposed to be even better optical (but of course not as wide).

Best regards,
Andy

Newer technology is out my friend, that lens is ooollllddddddd news. The link Andy provided shows that quite well.

For 700, go get a brand new 17-40L. You wont regret it.

thanks for the advice, makes sense.

Unless you really need the 1 stop advantage, don't waste your money and go for a 17-40mm f4 L.

yeah it was the extra stop that appealed to me, but i would prefer to buy new and get a warranty, etc. so it's the 17-40.