November 28, 2014, 06:03:26 PM

Author Topic: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L  (Read 6526 times)

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:15:45 PM »
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?
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

canon rumors FORUM

Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:15:45 PM »

KreutzerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2012, 04:32:54 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #2 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.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

DJL329

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2012, 05:34:54 PM »
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
Canon EOS 5D Mark III | EF 14mm f/2.8L | EF 28mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | EF 300mm f/4L IS

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2601
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2012, 05:39:06 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.

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.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2012, 05:47:57 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.

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.

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?
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

Magnumphotography

  • Guest
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2012, 06:25:05 PM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2012, 06:25:05 PM »

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2601
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2012, 06:32:02 PM »
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.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1617
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2012, 06:40:35 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2012, 08:01:18 PM »
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.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4542
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2012, 08:12:21 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.

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.

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?

tried KEH.com ?
APS-H Fanboy

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2012, 12:13:40 AM »
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.

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?

tried KEH.com ?

Yup, they only have it new, I'm trying to save a few $$ and get a used one.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

c3hammer

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 01:50:37 AM »
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 01:50:37 AM »

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1617
    • View Profile
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2012, 02:22:31 AM »
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

  • Guest
Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2012, 06:22:09 AM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2012, 06:22:09 AM »