 |
|
|
Gunzorro
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 14521
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value as a used lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Older design and optics.
|
|
|
I used this lens for many years as my extreme wide angle zoom. In conjunction with the original 24 TS-E I covered all sorts of architectural assignments, covering both indoors and out.
The lens has been superseded in IQ by the 16-35L II. But the 17-35 is still viable, especially with LR3 and LR4. As a used bargain lens at this time, it surpasses almost anything else in its price range and is quite usable at f/2.8 for the center of the frame.
|
|
 Sep 26, 2012
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
+ great build; + fast AF; + good sharpness, at least from about f/4.0 but usable wide open as well.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really. I wish it had been sharp at f/2.8 but for the price, I can't complain.
|
|
|
I chose this over both 17-40 and 16-35 because I wanted some leeway above the f/4 aperture of the former and the latter (mk I version) was $300 more. So I found a guy who was selling a very decent copy of this lens and... it's been with me for over 1.5 years. It wasn't terribly wide on a 30D but since I switched to an APS-H body it's been great, just what the doctor ordered. My copy is excellent even though it was made in 1996; the only problem is the slight difficulty with zooming at some point around 30mm.
I'm shooting this at f/4 or narrower and can't fault the image quality. With 17-40, I would have had to use f/5.6 or narrower all the time and it's not always an option. The 17-35 is noticeably heavier than the 17-40 but I don't mind.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2010
|
|
Mike Subocz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 93
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $565.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, good focus speed, great color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
None at this time!
|
|
|
I picked this great copy off CL a few months ago and haven't been happier. I ended up switching from a 24-70L to the 17-35 and by doing so opened up more possibilities. The USM works great and the colors are nice. I was skeptical going for such an old lens, but it goes to show you, Canon makes a great product.
BTW I also used a 17-40L 4.0 (less that 2 years old) but I wasn't impressed. I tested the 17-35 against the 17-40 to be sure, and the 17-35 performed better, so I kept it.
I should also mention the 17-35 is a good walk around lens.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2009
|
|
plm25
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
weight, sharp, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I picked up this from local craigslist for $250. Focusing, IQ is excellent.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2009
|
|
six66
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2008
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
weight, price, constant 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
none .. absolutely perfect for the price i paid
|
|
|
it was either the newer 17-40 f4 or the 13 year old 17-35 f2.8. I found a used but very good condition 17-35 f2.8, tested it along with 17-40. Constant f2.8 at 600 is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2009
|
|
whitetail
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 140
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Cost (for an L!), build, quality, speed, minimal barrel distortion at 17mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight (to be expected from an L), a little soft wide open
|
|
|
I became sick and tired of dealing with my dslr kit lens, so I decided to upgrade. It was a choice between the Canon 17-40 f/4 and this lens. I really wanted to avoid upgrading to only f/4, even with the quality of an L. I found a used copy on eBay at a very attractive price. I only paid $525 USD for it, a fraction of the 16-35 f/2.8 II 's cost, without trading much quality. I have the speed and sharpness of a wide angle f/2.8 L, without giving an arm and a leg. This lens was much bigger than I expected (it was my first L), especially with the hood on. However, it has turned into my main workhorse lens, since I use it on a dslr with 1.6x crop factor. It seems a little soft at f/2.8, but is nice and sharp when stopped down to around f/4. It captures shots wonderfully, with the quality and clarity expected of the L line.
|
|
|
May 21, 2008
|
|
neilvandyke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Apr 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, good image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide-open.
|
|
|
I use this on a 20D body, as my wide zoom. Funding-wise, it was essentially a trade from a Tamron 17-50/2.8 plus a 28/1.8 (both excellent copies).
I would prefer more reach, but I have a second 20D with a 70-200 on it, plus a 50/1.4 ready to swap on to either body.
I immediately stuck a new multicoated UV filter on front of the 17-35/2.8L, as it's not sealed, and the the front element moves in and out a bit within the barrel.
I'm still trying to find a longer hood that mounts without modification.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2008
|
|
kawter2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 168
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, light, cheap, good build
|
|
Cons:
|
only thing i can think of is f4, but it honestly hasn't been an issue as i can drag the shutter a lot @ 17mm
|
|
Such a great lens. I purchased it before there was a 16MKII but I have found this lens to be significantly sharper than the old 16-35 Tons of photos on my blog http://ericjphotography.com/blog I would be lost if it weren't in my bag. I should mention that i use it on a 5D and really would only suggest it on FF
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2008
|
|
adamrose13
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1288
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
not sure
|
|
Cons:
|
not sure
|
|
|
can someone compare this lens to the 17-40L f/4...
in terms if IQ, sharpness, and build and just in general
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2008
|
|
jimpee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $598.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
•L quality build, color, contrast, and saturation
•silent, fast focus
•cost/value
•2.8 throughout
•full time manual focus
|
|
Cons:
|
•not as sharp as other L glass that is 3x the price.
•I'll only buy L lenses from now on (they're expensive)
|
|
|
I was on a budget and needed a fast wide-angle zoom for hand-held available light photos. I purchased this lens after agonizing for months over what to buy.
I read all the reviews, compared all the wide-angle lenses, and was unimpressed with the build quality, whiny zoom, and reversed mechanics of the Tamron 17-50. I passed on the Tamron, paid $200 more and have been extremely pleased with the value for what I paid.
For $600 (a steal, in my opinion) I have L build quality, low light focus that always works (unlike the Tamron), great saturation and contrast, and full time manual focus. The images aren't quite as sharp as my 50mm prime, but they are sharp enough for my needs.
If you're using a full-frame camera, I can see how distortion could be a problem. However, on my 30D this lens exceeded my expectations.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2008
|
|
marxzed
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 74
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, fast aperture, used units are available very cheep on eBay
|
|
Cons:
|
not so shape or free of CA as the 16-35mm particularly in corners.... won't win you friends in the "elite L series snobs" crowd
|
|
|
Despite being twice superseded this is still a great lens. The 16-35 (particularly the MkII version) is noticeably sharper and more resistant to CA than this older lens......
HOWEVER... a used 17-35 can be picked up for 1/4 the price (or less) of the street price for the 16-35 MkII. Which give you a lot of bang for your buck.
Most of these faults are lost on a 1.6 crop camera such as my D60 and 20D. When used on my film body, yeh I can see some softness at the corners but I can generally compose and work around it.
Used on a 1.6 crop body this is now my primary walk around lens giving me effective FoV of a 28 to 55 mm zoom.
Pro's have been happily using this lens for years and so while it may not be as awesome as the 16-55mm 2.8 L MkII it is still quality kit and the cheap price on the used market make it a great bargain for us less affluent non pro enthusiast.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2008
|
|
Kristian ra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, relatively cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Not really built like an L
|
|
|
I bought the Sigma 18-50 EX DC f2.8 with my Canon 20D. It was a minor disaster - as I realised I don't like the Sigma tone (yellowish) nor the non-USM focus system.
So I had to upgrade - and was thinking of buying the Canon 17-40. However, I found a beaten up copy of the 17-35, and after testing it on a 1D - which assured good sharpness and only slight distortion on the edges - I figured out this would work perfectly on the 20D with 1.6 crop.
And it did. Images are crisp, great contrast and colour. Only problem is a slightly sluggish or non-smooth zoom, which is probably due to heavy use in the past. But pictures turn out great - which is what matters. If you find one for the price of the 17-40, it's really not a question which one to buy, the 17-35 is after all the old, big brother.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2007
|
|
duckieNL
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Almost same range as sucsessor, almost sameprice as 17/40
|
|
Cons:
|
No available anymore
|
|
|
I needed a wide angle lens with high light capacity. This because i wanted to shoot bands and DJ´s without a flash, to maintain the original colors. This is a truly great lens, perhaps not as good as its sucsessor 16-35, but for cropcams like my 10D/300D, it is great value. I have not yet had the pleasure of a 17-40 F4 but i think i have a better lens now for indoors en landscape photography for the same price as a 17-40.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2007
|
|
Ross T.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Wide Angle Zoom Range....FAST!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I've had mine for over 10 yrs...Very Fast...Great Wide Angle Zoom Range...If you could pick up a used one it could be a Great Buy...Not my sharpest Canon Lens-Wide Angle Zooms never are...But this is a Great Lens...On my Canon 5D it's still a 17-35mm lens....A FUN Lens to Shoot, especially at 17mm....Very Happy with mine!!!
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2006
|
|
Nick De Marco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide on full frame. Light and sharp. Fast for wide angle
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I bought this lens second hand in Paris in August 2006 for about £600 (I paid about £700 and got the Canon EOS 50e 35mm camera body as well).
I wanted a very wide angle lens for my full cropped 5D. I purchased the 24-105mm f4 L with the 5D and whilst this is a very good walkabout lens and is quite wide at 24mm, it is not wide enough for some situations. Also at 24mm you can notice quite a lot of distortion. Having purchased the 10-22mm Sigma for my 350D I wanted something that could go that wide. The 17-35 second hand was only marginally cheaper than buying the new 17-40 f4 L lens, but the fact that it was f2.8 all the way through - something I particularly like - swung it for me. I have read some critical reviews of this lens (as I have of all the Canon wideangle L lenses), but I am happy with it and think the distortion less than at 24 on the 24-105 L lens. The range is perfect for wide angle on the 5D.
I have a gallery of pics taken with this lens on display at
http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/canon_1735_f28_l
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2006
|
|
tutumon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1091
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $875.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice build, Excellent quality, Fast Maximum aperture throughout the range.
|
|
Cons:
|
I couldn't find any.
|
|
|
I use this for walkaround, landscape and portrait work. A beatifull lens. If you get a chance to buy one of these beauties, do so. I've seen reviews that the lens is soft...My copy is very good. I use it stopped down most of the time for my purposes, and haven't done much "testing" wide open. The few shots I tried wide open were very good.
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
184401
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$777.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.26
|
9.00
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
