bostechie
I'm too old to know everything
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Boston, MA
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Which better - Canon Wide Zoom 17-35/2.8 or Canon 17-40/4.0
Hi folks:
I'm presented with those two choices in my price range ($700-ish). The 17-35/2.8L is used going for $795 while the 17-40/4.0 is new for $700 after Canon instant rebate. I can't find any real reviews of the 17-35/2.8. So, aside from the obvious aperture difference and what that implies, can anyone enlighten me on the best choice and why?
You input will be greatly appreciated. - Taylor 
--
"Life is too important to be taken seriously" - Oscar Wilde
"NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY" |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs:
·wavebroadband
| Good luck -- the reviewers @ FM seem to have no idea either
»www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show···7&page=1
vs.
»www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show···7&page=1
I'd go with the f2.8 simply due to my love of shallow DOF.
--
Come play Mafia! | My Picture Blog |
|
grendal
Mmm Donuts
Premium
join:2001-10-10
Fremont, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
3 edits | reply to bostechie
The 17-35/2.8L has been superseded twice by the 16-35/2.8L and the 16-35/2.8L II. So it's an old lens (ages doesn't make it bad).
This link thinks the 17-40 is better than the older 17-35 (article compares 17-40/F4 to the 16-35/F2.8 Mark I. Read last paragraph)
»luminous-landscape.com/reviews/l···40.shtml
I personally own the 17-40 and it's my most used lens.
Based on completed ebay sales, the 17-35/2.8 sold for $610 and $291 (af was broken on this one, mf only). $795 is bit steep.
From reviews I read, this is my impression in terms of performance. If you need 2.8 speed, you do so at loss of some sharpness.
left -> right is better.
17-35/f2.8, 16-35/f2.8, 17-40/f4 and 16-35/f2.8 II tossup |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | I missed the 17 :/ |
|
grendal
Mmm Donuts
Premium
join:2001-10-10
Fremont, CA
clubs: | reply to bostechie
bostechie,
since you have the 5d mark II, I'd just get the 17-40 as it'll be sharper. The one stop loss you can compensate by bumping up your ISO since the 5D mark II is pretty clean at higher ISOs. |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs:
| reply to bostechie
I would go for the 17-40mm f/4 ONLY if I could use it first or see samples first or return for refund if not happy. Those lenses are either good or bad, and many users will tell you the ones they got didn't/don't deserve the L rating on them. When I shot Canon I bought 2 of those as they were well recommended on this forum, both total pieces of junk... one had AF issues... the other was just plain soft and nasty. But a good copy can do very well. I ended up with a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 instead, but they are not for FF sensors, although the 28-75mm f/2.8 does quite well on them anyways.
--
Images are Copyrighted and use is NOT
permitted. |
|
bostechie
I'm too old to know everything
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Boston, MA
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to bostechie
Thanks everyone for your feedback/recommendations.
After much deliberation I finally decided to go with the 24-105 f/4L glass. Fortunately I have a great relationship with the manager of my local Hunt's Photo. He let me return my 5D Mark II body and purchase the kit which includes the above glass. This saved me considerable $$$ as opposed to buying the glass separately.
The 24-105 is sharp as a tack and while not as wide as the others, it makes for a great all purpose lens.
--
"Life is too important to be taken seriously" - Oscar Wilde
"NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY" |
|
