# Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2012)

So, as the subject says, I'm thinking of getting one of the older 20-35 f/2.8L or 17-35 f/2.8L lenses. Obviously used. My debate is over cost, availability, and the fact that the 5d3 does have a CA removal profile for the 17-35, but not the 20-35. Also I've read that the 20-35 has little to no distortion, while the 17-35 has some complex distortion, especially at 17. 

In terms of the CA, I'm guessing LR4.1 can do a good job of that and there's a profile for it already, and also I'm guessing that LR 4.1 can also do a real good job on the 17-35 to correct the distortion. Anyone used these lenses with LR and can comment on the CA/Distortion correction? Even if it's just LR3, if that could fix it good I'm assuming LR4 can.

Otherwise, anyone used either or both? Or have a good glass copy to sell? It looks like on ebay the 17-35 is running about $450-650 or so, while Keh.com has the 20-35 for ~$800, but no copies of the 17-35 right now. B&H and Adorama don't have any used. Anywhere else I should be looking?


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Jun 6, 2012)

I am so happy with my 16-35 II that I dont think i COULD reccommend anything else WA from canon... although I have yet to get my hands on some wide L primes...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2012)

The 2 lenses I mentioned are 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35 II, and also I think they both take 77mm filters instead of 82mm. Mostly for me it's the initial cost. I can see myself spending up to ~$650 or so for one, but definitely not the ~$1600 or so for a 16-35 II.


----------



## DJL329 (Jun 6, 2012)

Try the Buy&Sell forum on fredmiranda.com (it's mostly pros and amateurs -- no sign-up fee to buy), but also check ebay. I was actually watching a 17-35mm L that went for $608 earlier today, but here's a "Buy It Now" one for $800.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-17-35-f2-8-L-USM-Lens-ZOOM-2nd-PRICE-REDUCTION-/120919260758?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c27597e56


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 6, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> The 2 lenses I mentioned are 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35 II, and also I think they both take 77mm filters instead of 82mm. Mostly for me it's the initial cost. I can see myself spending up to ~$650 or so for one, but definitely not the ~$1600 or so for a 16-35 II.



I have not used either lens. I know people who have. They are BOTH very good performing lenses. My personal preference would be the 17-35mm lens, because it covers more focal lengths and will perform superbly. Don't read too much into that abberation stuff/distortion stuff at the low end. Most people shooting at that focal length crop anyways, and to the normal person there is no problem if the photo is properly exposed. That's just my 1.5 cents.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 6, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > The 2 lenses I mentioned are 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the 16-35 II, and also I think they both take 77mm filters instead of 82mm. Mostly for me it's the initial cost. I can see myself spending up to ~$650 or so for one, but definitely not the ~$1600 or so for a 16-35 II.
> ...



I don't read too much into the distortion, and I'll be shooting on FF, and may (or may not) be cropping. Actually, I sometimes like the look of the distortion whenever I'm shooting wide, sometimes I'll just leave off LR's lens correction.

Any idea where to get one other than ebay?


----------



## Magnumphotography (Jun 6, 2012)

I have the 17-35 f2.8L. Also the 5D mark III.
Performance wise, for $600 it's a good value. It does have some distortion and flare. More noticalble at 17mm.
Yet for that price, it's a nice sharp, fast lens. You should not be disappointed. Mine has seen many years of use, including many wedding shoots. Although the felt is gone on the lens hood, it has never let me down.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 6, 2012)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000053HGW/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all&redirect=true

That's current amazon deals. I haven't checked KEH yet. Not sure about that seller with the $1250 price.


----------



## pwp (Jun 6, 2012)

Both these lenses worked kind of OK with film bodies but will be punished by the 5D3 sensor. The likelihood of disappointment would be high. Have you thought about a pre-owned 17-40 f/4? They can be a bit mushy around the edges wide open but quickly become a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II just a click down to f/5.6. This would ultimately be a far more satisfying lens.

PW


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 7, 2012)

pwp said:


> Both these lenses worked kind of OK with film bodies but will be punished by the 5D3 sensor. The likelihood of disappointment would be high. Have you thought about a pre-owned 17-40 f/4? They can be a bit mushy around the edges wide open but quickly become a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II just a click down to f/5.6. This would ultimately be a far more satisfying lens.
> 
> PW



Hmm...you raise a good point about a used 17-40. I just assumed it'd still cost quite a bit more than the 17-35. Also thinking about it, I still mostly wouldn't want to use the 17-35 at f/2.8, mostly at f/4 or smaller so I won't lose too much in that way. Plus, as you say, it's a much newer design as well as being on the CPS list of lenses. I think I might be looking around further for the 17-40 used.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 7, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



tried KEH.com ?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Yup, they only have it new, I'm trying to save a few $$ and get a used one.


----------



## c3hammer (Jun 7, 2012)

I had a 17-35 L f/2.8 for about a year. Used it on a T3i. It is a very nice lens for everything, except sharpness. It's super soft down near f/2.8 and no where near the sharpeness of the 16-35 L at f/2.8 I bought it for $450 and sold it for $600 so I was pretty happy to have owned it 

I ended up with a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and a 24mm L f/1.4 II to replace it, both of which are radically sharper with very little CA and much better bokah.

The 16-35L f/2.8 is a much nicer lens, but on the full frame MkIII you can't use filters at 16mm and never two filters at once, as it vignettes terribly.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## pwp (Jun 7, 2012)

c3hammer said:


> I had a 17-35 L f/2.8 for about a year. Used it on a T3i.



You'll generally see more acceptable results with these older lenses on APS-C than FF.

PW


----------



## Birdshooter (Jun 7, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> My debate is over cost, availability, and the fact that the 5d3 does have a CA removal profile for the 17-35, but not the 20-35.



So you will be shooting WA, thus no fast moving target, potentially manual focussing etc.

Going for the obvious...Why do you want to spend $3500 on a body and save on a lens, rather then get the 5DII and the 16 -35 f/2.8 II?
For me glass is always more important then body.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 7, 2012)

Birdshooter said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > My debate is over cost, availability, and the fact that the 5d3 does have a CA removal profile for the 17-35, but not the 20-35.
> ...



Already have the 5d2, I upgraded to the 5d3. For me, it was the vastly improved AF, and the improved sensor an ISO noise since I really like to shoot in darker environments and live shows & candids and stuff like that. I really only recently got the idea of a UWA/WA lens. I'm dying for the 24L, but even used it's too expensive for me right now, and after renting the 14mm for a bit I'd like to try using more UWA/WA for some things. Plus, I originally thought I could find one of those older lenses for really cheap, like $200 or something, but after doing lots of searching they all were nearly to the price of a used 17-40. So, I've found a 17-40 on CL, and going to buy it once the seller gets back to me.

Personally, I don't see the 17-40 as being significantly worse than the 16-35, most reviews I've seen have said they both have their strengths and weaknesses, so it's sorta a wash depending on if you have really specific needs. For me, the f/4 isn't going to be that big of a deal, as I'm used to shooting with the 24-105.


----------



## rmblack (Jun 10, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Birdshooter said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



Wait a second, you can't just push the facts under the carpet. What about sharpness and resolving ability? I thought the 17-40 can't hold edge sharpness under f8? I don't want to challenge the way you're going about buying bodies vs. lenses...but there's a reason the 17-40 is ~600 used, and the 16-35 2.8 II is double that. If you shoot wide open, you're going to have a bad time with that lens. Good luck with whatever you decide on!


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 10, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> I am so happy with my 16-35 II that I dont think i COULD reccommend anything else WA from canon... although I have yet to get my hands on some wide L primes...



The 24mm f/1.4II is awesome, but not really ultra wide. The 14LII is awesome, expensive, but awesome. Super sharp compared to the 16-35 and renders color beautifully.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 11, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> and the fact that the 5d3 does have a CA removal profile for the 17-35, but not the 20-35.



I cannot comment on the two lenses, but on the postprocessing question: As you wrote yourself, in-camera correction only matters if shooting jpeg and wanting straight out of cam pictures, else look if there's a profile for your software (Lighroom? Get Adobe lens profile downloader) around. LR distortion correction works ok in versions 3 & 4, and CA correction made a big jump ahead with LR4.1.

Nowadays, imho it really boils down to a lens' sharpness - and only you'll know how much edge or open aperture sharpness matters for your shooting style, in any case f2.8 is nice for better low light af performance.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 11, 2012)

While you are shopping, if you are still considering the 17-40 f/4L used, you could also consider the older 16-35L mark I used (aka not the current 16-35LMKII). It's fairly comparable in quality to the current 16-35L MKII, and takes smaller/cheaper filters. If I had to do it again, and wasn't working with only a very specific credit line that shops at a single store that only sells new products, I would have probably gotten the 17-40 used or the 16-35 MKI used. That said, the 16-35L MKII is a great lens for my purposes both on Crop and Full Frame bodies.


----------



## iaind (Jun 11, 2012)

I have the 17-35 and it gives good results. Bear in mind that it is not CPS supported.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 11, 2012)

I got a used 17-40L. Haven't used it much yet, as I was too busy with other things this weekend, but I'll try and find some time to take it out and try some different things with it.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Jun 14, 2012)

Cant argue with the 17-40 as long as f/4 is acceptable... Shooting weddings I NEED the 2.8 (about the slowest that would be acceptable). I have heard too much good about the 17-40 to hate on it too much...

Seems to be a war between 16-35 and 17-40 and neither CAN win because the two lenses are for different purposes


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> Shooting weddings I NEED the 2.8 (about the slowest that would be acceptable)



Could you please elaborate that? If f2.8 is the min. wedding aperture without IS for a 24-70 lens, isn't f4 ok for a 16mm focal length - esp. if it is for fewer, select shots only? Or is it because the af is better at f2.8?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> KreutzerPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting weddings I NEED the 2.8 (about the slowest that would be acceptable)
> ...



It's to get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Most especially if you're in an area that doesn't allow flashes, although not sure how often you'd use a super-wide or wide angle in those areas, which are usually churches, since you'd be getting kinda in the way for most ceremonies. And getting the shutter speed up is less about hand held motion than it is about freezing the subjects motion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 16, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> It's to get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Most especially if you're in an area that doesn't allow flashes, although not sure how often you'd use a super-wide or wide angle in those areas, which are usually churches, since you'd be getting kinda in the way for most ceremonies.



Exactly - you named one reason for my doubting f2.8 on a uwa is all important. The second is shutter speed - if 1/x second is ok @70mm and f2.8 for handheld & motion, then surely 1/(x/2) is ok @17mm and f4?

Of course "as fast as possible" is desirable, but I'm wondering if for a wedding/event setup a top f2.8 uwa zoom is the right spot to spend money for in contrast to your "bread and butter" 24-70 & maybe 70-200 f2.8 zooms.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > It's to get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Most especially if you're in an area that doesn't allow flashes, although not sure how often you'd use a super-wide or wide angle in those areas, which are usually churches, since you'd be getting kinda in the way for most ceremonies.
> ...



Sure, if the subjects are staying pretty still. If there's a good bit of action, you still need a high shutter speed. So at 17mm, 1/20 might be a decent shutter speed for say the alter. But when you add in the priest, couple getting married, grooms-men, brides-maids, even normal movement at 1/20 might be blurred, so 1/60 is much better, and 1/120 is significantly better.


----------

