# replacement for my 17-35 till there is a 14-24



## NYCPHOTO (Nov 27, 2013)

Hello All,

I still use the older 17-35 2.8 lens...it has served me well for many years but I'm having issues with it. ( the connection between camera and lens goes bad. Have to turn off camera take lens off and remount )

Canon does not even service this lens any more. Checking into independents that might me able to service it.

What I want is a Canon 14-24 ( don't we all ) but since this is not an option, I wondering what the best stop-gap solution would be till they do.

My main concern is image quality for a minimal investment that I'll sell when the 14-24 comes out.

So far it's between the Tokina 16-28 2.8 or the Canon 14-40 F4
I like that the Tokina is cheaper $700 @ B&H vs $840 for Canon.
The Tokina is also faster and wider
The reviews I've found push the Tokina.
If build quality is a little lower on the Tokina so be it...just needs to last till canon brings out the 14-24.

I'm a pro shooter doing everything from weddings to corporate and editorial.

I have the canon 15 fisheye to cover the super wide stuff till canon brings out the 14-24.

Love feedback/suggestions

Thanks...Arnie


----------



## Vivid Color (Nov 27, 2013)

Have you considered the Rokinon 14mm for less than $340? I don't have this lens, but plan to get it, and it has gotten a lot of great reviews by members of this forum.


----------



## NYCPHOTO (Nov 27, 2013)

Thanks...but I don't need another fixed lengh ..have the fisheye for that...need a zoom to replace my 17-35


----------



## Eldar (Nov 27, 2013)

There are quite a few mint condition second hand 17-40 f4L lenses out there.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 1, 2013)

I would go with the Canon 17-40L, while it is old it is a decent performer and you get Canon quality/service. Also, consider if a 14-24 does come out it likely will lack front filter capability - so might want to consider a 16-35 f/2.8 II as a permanent replacement.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 1, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> Have you considered the Rokinon 14mm for less than $340? I don't have this lens, but plan to get it, and it has gotten a lot of great reviews by members of this forum.


The Rokinon 14mm is the worst piece of junk I've ever owned. Don't believe everything you have read. Most pro reviewers give them a passing grade, but they are not something for professional use, or even a serious amateur.


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 1, 2013)

There is nothing to lose in picking up a used 17-40 as it will resell at the same price in a few years. Decide if you like it, as your bodies can compensate for the f4 with higher ISO. While not an optically perfect lens like the 14mm, it will do what you ask of it, and not leave you hanging.

I don't recall, but is the 17-35mm lens profiled in the 5d3/6d? That itself should help push you forward.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 1, 2013)

.
Unless you really need the f/2.8, I'd have to second the Canon 17-40. That's what I'm using and will keep using until something like a great 14-24 comes along.

The Rokinon 14mm is hardly an appropriate suggestion for someone looking to replace a zoom -- and who already has a 15mm prime. As for believing everything you read about that Rokinon, don't. I have not found it to be a piece of "junk." While I'd never recommend it for pro work in fast-paced environments, it can deliver spectacular UWA results if you have the time and patience to work with a fully manual operation. For $300, it's giving me a lot of satisfaction.


----------



## syder (Dec 1, 2013)

As a pro shooter get the 16-35 f2.8 ii. The extra stop of light and general improvement before f11 over the 17-40 f4 is well worth it, especially at corporate events and weddings where you have to work in available light which is often far from ideal.

If something far better which will suit your style of shooting comes along you can always sell, and L lenses tend to hold their value pretty well (far better than 3rd party lenses, although this does mean you're more likely to pick up a bargain 2nd hand tokina)... But the point is, as a professional you should invest in the equipment you need to do the job today, not wait for something which may do the job better in a year or two, the difference in cost between the 17-40 and 16-35 is less than one wedding/event.

As has been mentioned here the potential issue with both the tokina 16-28 and the posited 14-24 is that they feature bulbous front elements which mean that you wont be using screw on filters - so its a mattebox or nothing. No problem for landscapes, but not what you to have to be fiddling about with when running around at a wedding or corporate event... And you describe yourself as a pro who does weddings and events... The samyang/rokinon is not what you want for the type of work you describe (where versatility is key).


----------



## Traktor (Dec 2, 2013)

I own both lenses and the Tokina absolutely destroys the Canon 17-40, particularly at the wide end.
The Canon is just downright poor in the corners at 17mm, whereas the Tokina is sharp corner to corner when stopped down a fraction.
I use the photodiox wonderpana system for filters which works well, but does add bulk.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 2, 2013)

Get the 17-40L. I'm awaiting the same 14-24L or 16-35L III. I bump the ISO a bit and it get the job done.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 2, 2013)

+1. 17-40L would be enough. Go only for 16-35 if you really need F2.8. 5D3 and 6D are very good low-light performers already so it cuts a little bit the importance of a larger aperture.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Dec 6, 2013)

NYCPHOTO said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I still use the older 17-35 2.8 lens...



Reading through the recommendations I second what most posters say on the 17-40. I have both the 16-35 i and ii, as well as the nikkor 12-24 / 17-35 F4, which are also nice lenses ( without AF ).

Although each copy is a bit different of course, the image quality of the 17-40 wins on my end, and with weight factored into the conversation it wins again.

I created this video for another post about the 17-40, but check it out as it applies to this one as well! It's a decent example of what I'm getting in terms of sharpness and color rendition after 7 years of consistent use in the field. 

https://app.box.com/s/gve71fte4zrz9ppkoq0j (55mb). 

So if price was no option I'd get the 17-40. And if it were I'd still get it. 

Graham

grahamclarkphoto.com


----------



## Ruined (Dec 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Get the 17-40L. I'm awaiting the same 14-24L or 16-35L III. I bump the ISO a bit and it get the job done.



You really think a 16-35 iii is coming anytime soon? With the II, they already increased the front element size to require 82mm filter... If one does come out w/ lots better quality I assume it will require 86mm filter or not take filters.

14-24 that does not take filters I could see, though, since that is something Canon does not have and it would be a good match for a competitor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 12, 2013)

Ruined said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Get the 17-40L. I'm awaiting the same 14-24L or 16-35L III. I bump the ISO a bit and it get the job done.
> ...



I can wait. My 17-40L is doing fine until then.


----------

