Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell    end    Archive 2012 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)?

venu Offline • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? I picked up the 17-35 f/2.8 yesterday on a A2E film camera for dirt cheap. The lens is 1996 vintage but the glass and everything is clean. I was wondering if I should keep it or if I should move to the 17-40 f/4 instead. I will be using the lens on a 5D Mark 2 for outdoor shots (landscapes, waterfalls and building and monument photos on vacation). As can be imagined, I will be shooting the lens stopped down to f/8 or so for the most part. For these parameters, is the 17-40 much better? I have read the review by Fred here on FM (which seems to be authoritative piece) but I was wondering how the two lenses compared in everyday shooting. If I did decide to get rid of it, what kind of price would the lens command on the used market (clean body and glass, hood is pristine)? Feb 21, 2012 at 02:05 AM

reno.peterson Online • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? Keep it! It's a stop faster and a step shorter...you can always stop it to f/4, you can't go the other way with the 17-40L without an auger bit, but then u think you lose functionality... Feb 21, 2012 at 02:23 AM

mmurph Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #3 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? I always prefer 2.8 just for the brighter viewfinder, even if I don't shoot that aperture. Do you have a 24-70 or simila? You could compare them at the ranges where they overlap and see if it is up to par. My 24-70 is a very good lens. Still lusting after the new version though. Feb 21, 2012 at 04:29 AM

jcomer82 Offline • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #4 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? As far as performance... I'd say it lacks a little compared to the 17 - 40. I've used both, and the 17 - 35 vignetted quite a bit more on a 1D II N, especially on the wide end. I also thought the colors were a lot more flat. Anywho, that's just what I noticed. Different strokes for different folks. Feb 21, 2012 at 04:36 AM

jcomer82 Offline • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? Oh, and I was able to sell mine for $550. I got a good deal on it, and just wanted to recover my costs. I've seen them go for a little more ($600 - $700). Feb 21, 2012 at 04:37 AM

Snopchenko Offline • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #6 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? I had the 17-35 for two years and loved it. Mine was also made in 1996 (UK date code) but very good mechanically and optically. You couldn't tell this lens was that ancient by looking at it, the only giveaway was the conservative MFD (42 cm). I only shot it at f/2.8 sporadically but it was nice to have in a pinch (like this shot below, done in really horrible light conditions, wide open at 17mm, ISO 3200). Of course now I have a 16-35 II so I don't really miss the old lens; the new one is sealed and has better sharpness but at double the price. Feb 21, 2012 at 06:11 AM

Gunzorro Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? I bought a 17-35L new about the time yours was made, replacing my old FD 20-35L. I kept it until last year when I bought the 17-40L and 16-35L II. The 17-35 did a lot of decent interior work for me during those years. I found the 17-40 to have more vignetting than the 17-35, but was a little sharper in the center. Both lenses are soft on the edges and corners. I sold the 17-40 and kept the 16-35. Personally, I'd keep the 17-35, unless you want to get the 16-35 II. Stopped down between f/8 and f/11 will get you the best edge to edge sharpness. Color is very good, and it can be used wide open with decent center sharpness. It is f/2.8 after all! Feb 21, 2012 at 06:44 AM

venu Offline • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? mmurph wrote: I always prefer 2.8 just for the brighter viewfinder, even if I don't shoot that aperture. Do you have a 24-70 or simila? You could compare them at the ranges where they overlap and see if it is up to par. My 24-70 is a very good lens. Still lusting after the new version though. I use a 24-105 right now and I could test the overlapping focal lengths between the two of them. I plan to shoot the lens between 17 and 24 for the most part though. Thanks for the idea! Feb 21, 2012 at 02:49 PM

venu Offline • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? Gunzorro, Snopchenko: Yeah, the 16-35 is a little much for the (likely) limited use I will be putting it to. I suppose I should just rent a 17-40 and try the two out to see which lens I prefer. Feb 21, 2012 at 02:53 PM

Chad Bassman Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #10 · Opinions on 17-35 f/2.8L (vs 17-40 f/4)? venu - hères an idea... buy mine! love or hate it, it's a steal http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1087758 Feb 21, 2012 at 03:58 PM

	end FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Lost your password?