Gear Talk > Lenses

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

(1/6) > >>

Drizzt321:
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:
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:
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:
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:

--- Quote from: Drizzt321 on June 06, 2012, 04:50:12 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version