Ef 17-35 2.8

[manh_cuong]

I got 28 2.8 but need wider now, in my local camera shops has EF 17-

35 2.8L very good condition, the price around 750$ including hood and

soft case. Pls sharing your experiences with Ef 17-35 2.8? Should I

buy used Ef 17-35 2.8 L or EF 17-40 4L in new condition?

[brian_torio]

Manh -- If you read the reviews on this site, you'll find mixed reviews of the 17-35 2.8 L lens. Some people love it and some people prefer the newer 16-35 2.8 L lens. I was skeptical when I decided to look for a 17-35. I ended up testing a few of them before I found one that met my expectations. I think the problem that people experienced was with softness on the edges, which was caused (at least in part) by misaligned elements (this has been mentioned in past threads ... you should find more specific info if you do a search). If you're considering the 17-35, I would recommend that you test if first and make sure it meets (or hopefully exceeds) your expectations. Shoot a few frame and review the results to make sure the edge sharpness meets your standards. If possible, test the 17-40 as well so you have all the information you need to compare the results of the two lenses and make a decision.

 

All that said, the 17-40 is a good lens. A big part of your decision is whether or not you will need the extra stop offered by the 17-35. If you don't need it, then the 17-40 is an excellent choice. The reviews on this site all seem to be quite positive. Since you don't mention what type of photography you will be doing, I can't offer you any more specific advice.

 

I hope that helps. Good luck making a decision.

[manh_cuong]

Thank your your value informations.

[bernard_negrete]

I have read that the 35 mm think 1.2 or 1.8 is really good. any how i have been recomended by a great photographer the 24mm.f1.4 .

I do own the 17-40 lenses and in my experience they are excelent but there is the major draw-back ,which is the f-stop which is 4 and that means alot if you are intending to use it in shady areas.

 

I would recommend looking at the 24/1.4L

they are wide and have a wide f-stop which menas alot(don't learn the hard way ,like me)

[yakim_peled1]

I had the 17-35/2.8 but didn't like it. Sharpness was unacceptable below f/5.6. Flare was always a main concern (and yes, I used the lens hood at all times). Distortion was evident at 20mm and below. In addition, I used it almost exclusively in either 24mm or 35mm settings. Thus, I sold it and bought the 35/2 and 24/2.8 primes. Optically, they are far superior.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[andrei_lau1]

I owned the 17-35L for quite a while and I find that it is the most used lens among all, far more than the all purpose 28-135. I don't find that the lens soft, instead it produces sharp image all the time. I like its perspective and it is an excellent travel lens. I have no reason to upgrade it to 16-35L despite its better reviews. The only complaint is that I find the hood sometimes difficult to screw in, may be it wears out a bit. Another slight drawback is that at the widest end and wide open, it may have a little vignetting. Nevertheless it is not that apparant if close down a little.

[vinh_trinh_quang]

17-35 2.8 will give you more freedom in all occassion while 17-40 limited. I own 17-35 2.8 and love it.