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

[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]

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]

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?

 

[Magnumphotography]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[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.

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.

 

[c3hammer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.