Asking about Canon 17-35mm f/2.8L lens....


Status
Not open for further replies.

newmemberz

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,565
0
0
www.noahphotography.deviantart.com
Hi folks,
I wonder why I can't find 17-35mm f/2.8L in the canon EF lens line up in the website.

Is this lens discontinued?
How much was the new price for it?
Anyone using this lens? what do u guyz think?

thanx. :)
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
about 2 years ago

new price both about the same

now u can only get the 17-35 used
 

newmemberz

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,565
0
0
www.noahphotography.deviantart.com
Is there any review regarding this 17-35 f/2.8L compare to 17-40 f/4L.
Which one is better in term of image quality and sharpness?

What do you guyz think?
 

Digiman

New Member
Jan 30, 2004
1,239
0
0
newmemberz said:
Is there any review regarding this 17-35 f/2.8L compare to 17-40 f/4L.
Which one is better in term of image quality and sharpness?

What do you guyz think?
I have used both and in my subjective personal opinion, the 17-40 is way sharper and has much less CA (at least it was so on my copies). Hope it helps.
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
a used 17-35L costs slightly more than a new 17-40L

for just about 100 bucks more, u get one stop more :thumbsup:
 

newmemberz

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,565
0
0
www.noahphotography.deviantart.com
user111 said:
a used 17-35L costs slightly more than a new 17-40L

for just about 100 bucks more, u get one stop more :thumbsup:
I also thought like u bro....
But seeing reply from other CS-er fellow makes me undecided about this.

I think for the mean time I will stick to my 17-40 f/4L 1st.

Anyone think that it it's worthed to upgrade to 17-35mm f/2.8L?
Coz, I was thinking it would be very nice to have a faster lens for night shoot. :)
 

TMC

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2004
6,320
0
0
Beyond Space-Time Continuum
For night shoot, f stop doesnt matter. For LOW light events then I will worry about my F stop.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,001
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
Tried the 17-35 today...very solid! Compared to the 17-40 f4, 17-35 is better.
 

drumma

Senior Member
Jan 5, 2005
6,299
0
36
32
Oulu, Finland, Finland
www.wongliji.com
both lens are good...
17-35 is faster by one stop and sharper when stopped down. but doesn't have rubber o rings at the rear mount(if that really matters) and a longer minimun focusing distance.
17-40. i think it is built better and has rubber o rings. and a shorter minimun focusing distance.

both are great lenses to have. but the 17-35 is abit hard to find as the prices offered to me that time were ridiculous.. 2nd hand prices.
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
given the same or comparable price, then among all factors like distortion, build quality, maximum aperture, weight, etc

according to traditional view of thought which has been handed down and taught throught the ages from master to apprentice,

the most important and highest ranking factor affecting a lens is

MAXIMUM APERTURE

so

i strongly advice that the 17-35L is a wiser choice
 

newmemberz

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
1,565
0
0
www.noahphotography.deviantart.com

monsoon

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
416
0
0
from those 2 links, 17-40>16-35>17-35
 

monsoon

New Member
Oct 5, 2004
416
0
0
then why u sell ur 17-40...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.