Advice on 17-35 f2.8L

[alex j loveridge]

A local camera store is offering a used 17-35 f2.8L for GBP 640, as christmas

is approaching, I thought that another L lens would be a nice stocking filler

for myself, but I'd like a little advice before I commit to buying it.

 

1) Is this a good price? The lens is at least 5 years old and a new 16-35

f2.8L costs around GBP 1000, but it seems in good condition.

 

2) What is this lens like and what is it good for? the zoom range is similar

to the 17-40 f4L, which by all acounts is an excellent lens and sells for

around GBP 550, though obviously I am attracted to the faster f2.8. As I will

be using this on my 20D, this becomes a 28-56 (I could also use it on my old

Eos 30 (elan7) as a super wide), and I'd like to know how useful the zoom

range is, as I would use it with my 70-200 f4L, I'm a little worried about the

35-70 gap.

 

I generally shoot landscapes, nature, street scenes and the occasional event,

and I currently use an EFS 17-85 on my 20D.

 

many thanks

 

Alex

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I haven't used the 17-35, so everything I say about it is just what I've read from others. Take this with a grain of salt.</p>

 

<p>I'm sure it's better than your 17-85. The general opinion is that the 16-35 which replaced it is superior (and the 17-40 is generally regarded as being comparable to the 16-35; a bit weaker here, a bit stronger there, and about the same on average). Still, it's a pro lens, built to pro standards and likely better than consumer zooms which overlap its range.</p>

 

<p>As far as range on a 20D is concerned, that could be a bit of an issue. I have a 20D and the 17-40 is my most-used lens, followed by the 28-135. Since these two overlap, I don't have a gap to deal with, as you would. I also have the 50/1.4, and having a 50 (even the dirt cheap 50/1.8) might be a good idea for you to help fill in the gap.</p>

 

<p>I can't help you with the price, other than to suggest that you check out the usual sites (such as KEH and eBay) to see how the price of a used 17-35 typically compares to a new 16-35.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

If you shoot landscape, it is probably a better idea to keep the 17-85 and add an EF-S 10-22 to your set of lenses. This will give you real wide angle and is probably more useful than some better image quality shooting wide open in a range that is already covered by another lens.

[dan_vidal]

The 17-35 is great if you can find it cheap. It's not made anymore, so finding it used isn't an issue. Cheap is, and if it is cheap, there's often an issue. There's on on KEH now for $645US (?341) but it's listed as having a dent in the filter ring. I'd link it but KEH's new site design makes that tough.

[mirek_elsner1]

I had that lens and replaced it with 17-40. I sometimes miss the extra stop, but my copy of the 17-40 is sharper and it has better weather resistance so I don't regret the change. My answers to your questions:

 

1) I like the 17-40 better, so if the 17-40 new is cheaper than 17-35 used, then no, it is not a good price. Not in my opinion anyway.

 

2) I used this lens and the 17-40 with 20D and 70-200 for nearly 2 years. I filled the gap you mentioned with 50/1.4. The zoom range was ok for me, but it was never my primary lens and your needs may be different.

[robin_sibson1]

The 17~40 is a very good UWA zoom on FF. I used it as my standard lens for a while on the 20D, and whilst image quality was excellent, I found the zoom range very limiting. The 17~35 would be worse in this respect. As has been pointed out, optically it is generally regarded as falling a bit short of the 17~40 and 16~35. I don't think GBP640 is a particularly tempting price given the alternatives. Unless your requirement for useability on your EOS-30 is important, or you are contemplating a switch to FF digital in the near future, you should probably look at the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS. Apart from falling a somewhat short of L-series build quality, this would appear to be a better choice all round for 1.6-factor use, and you would probably not be bothered by the 55 to 70 gap.

[rainer_t]

Alex, the average prive for a 17-35/2.8 is about 700Euros (about 470 gbp), so it sounds to be on the dear side. I know that most photographic gear is more expensive "on the island" than it is on the rest of the continent, but the price seems still high.

 

As others mentioned, the quality of the 16-35/2.8 and of the 17-40/4 are better.

 

If you would only plan to use it on the 20D, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be worth a look. But it wouldn't work on your eos30.

 

Rainer

[wallacehenning]

Hi Alex

 

I had the same problem as you about year ago. A new 17-40 f4 or a second hand 17-35

f2.8. I chose the 17-35 f2.8m, I didnt know about the 17-40 f4 being sharper (I only just

found that out reading this). I bought mine for ?550 from ebay, so it was cheaper then

yours, but then again I was taking a risk. Even so I really like having the extra stop of light

as I do like to shoot night work, and sometimes end up shooting hand-held. I use it with a

10D. Hoping to get a 5D oneday, so it will make a nice wide lens, also thats why I went off

buying an EF-S as it wouldnt work on a 5D.

 

I really enjoy shooting with the lens. I think it sounds like I use it for the same things a

you. Most of the time I am happy with my shots, and I do get some stuff which is

surpriseingly sharp considering the situation. I do think its a really cool lens!

 

If you would like I can upload you some 100% crops of shots used with this lens?

 

As far as the gap goes, at the moment, my kit bag contains my 17-35mm and a 200mm

f2.8 L which I love! Also from the magical ebay, it was about ?350, and for the money its

really really good! I am thinking of getting a 50mm, or some other zoom like a

24-105mm. But Im not really finding it that much of problem.

 

Hope that helps. Let me know if you want some crops.

 

Wallace