| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2007 05:31:41 PM · #1 |
OK, I have the opportunity to purchase a Canon 17-35 f2.8 (note, not the 16-35) for about £500
Anyone here have any experience with it? Is that a good price for a mint copy of this lens? I am in the market for a wide angle and been looking at the 16-35, however this has come along and wondering if its worth taking the plunge. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 05:37:49 PM · #2 |
If the 2.8 isn't a big issue, I'd recommend the 17-40 4.0L. You can get it new for that or less (not sure about the UK pricing)
The older 2.8 17-35 and 16-35 were never known for being super sharp. The newer 16-35 2.8 is very good I've heard.
One other thing about those lenses. Traditionnaly they were purchased by photojournalists. I know from my photoj days, as a group, we were very hard on equipment. Just something to think about.
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 17:46:24. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 05:43:52 PM · #3 |
The Canon 17-35 f/2.8 wasn't a very good wide angle zoom, the 16-35 f/2.8 is much better and the mark II is improved more. On a Full frame camera I'd stay away from the old 17-35.
Review on Luminous Landscape HERE.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 05:46:17 PM · #4 |
cheers guys for the heads up.. the close focusing distance isnt as good on the 17-35.. might save up the pennies and get the 16-35..
cheers! |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 05:49:44 PM · #5 |
dont understand why u need 2.8 for a wide angle anyway.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 05:59:02 PM · #6 |
my thoughts as well... i'm happy with the 17-40 f:4L USM.
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
dont understand why u need 2.8 for a wide angle anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:05:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
dont understand why u need 2.8 for a wide angle anyway. |
If nobody needed fast+wide the 24/1.4L would not exist. There are plenty of applications for a fast, wide lens. You don't always want to maximize DoF when you're shooting wide.
Then there's the question of AF; a 2.8 lens will use the "high precision mode" of the cross-type AF sensors, while an f/4 lens will not.
FWIW, I agree on the 17-35 vs. 16-35 question of optical quality. Even the latest version of the 16-35 gets soft in the corners wide open. On the 5D, I would not personally use the 17-40. I've seen results from it and I don't like the corners at all. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:16:33 PM · #8 |
i was speking more along the lines of needing the speed of f:2.8 on a wider lens, more than about the DOF. though i don't think the 1 stop would make too much of a difference with the DOF. i know you'll prove me wrong, but that's alright ;}
|
|
|
|
09/12/2007 07:19:29 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
dont understand why u need 2.8 for a wide angle anyway. |
If nobody needed fast+wide the 24/1.4L would not exist. There are plenty of applications for a fast, wide lens. You don't always want to maximize DoF when you're shooting wide.
Then there's the question of AF; a 2.8 lens will use the "high precision mode" of the cross-type AF sensors, while an f/4 lens will not.
FWIW, I agree on the 17-35 vs. 16-35 question of optical quality. Even the latest version of the 16-35 gets soft in the corners wide open. On the 5D, I would not personally use the 17-40. I've seen results from it and I don't like the corners at all. |
Why? whats up with the corners? soft? too much vignetting? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 03:22:53 PM EST.
