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

[newmemberz]

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.

 

[Stoned]

It's been replaced by the 16-35L.

 

[JediForce4ever]

Its been discontinued.
I would suggest goin for thr 16-35mm instead.Its has better image quality over the 17-35mm

 

[newmemberz]

Now, I see.....

Do u guyz know how much it was selling brand new last time?
And when does the 16-35mm announced for the 1st time? thx.

 

[user111]

about 2 years ago

new price both about the same

now u can only get the 17-35 used

 

[newmemberz]

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]

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.

 

[+evenstar]

less distortion also, according to my friend.

personally, i would go for the 17-40 f4L if i don't need the f2.8 of the 16-35

 

[user111]

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]

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]

For night shoot, f stop doesnt matter. For LOW light events then I will worry about my F stop.

 

[Snoweagle]

Tried the 17-35 today...very solid! Compared to the 17-40 f4, 17-35 is better.

 

[drumma]

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]

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

 

[clie]

Take a look at these reviews. The 17-40L beats the 17-35L hands down.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

 

[newmemberz]

Take a look at these reviews. The 17-40L beats the 17-35L hands down.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

Thanx for the info clie,
But from the link u gave there's no comparison review between 17-40 and 17-35.
Wrong link maybe?

 

[monsoon]

from those 2 links, 17-40>16-35>17-35

 

[newmemberz]

from those 2 links, 17-40>16-35>17-35

I think I better stick to my 17-40 mm at the moment.
Thanx for the info guyz.
appreciate it.

 

[monsoon]

then why u sell ur 17-40...

 

[newmemberz]

becoz, I read this reviews after I put up my sales in BnS forum.
sorry for the inconvinience.