ART 17-35 f/2.8L vs. 17-40 f/4.0L

Fubar

OT Supporter
Dec 6, 2002
1,366
Arizona
Was at my local camera store today and they have a 17-35 f/2.8L available for $750.

I upgraded my 20D to a 5D classic. My favorite lens was Canon's 10-22... so I am looking for a full frame replacement.

Was considering the 17-40L, but the 17-35 is faster, and costs the less than a new 17-40.

Any reason not to get the 17-35?
 
TS
TS
Fubar

Fubar

OT Supporter
Dec 6, 2002
1,366
Arizona
Pretty sure he means 17-35.

Yeah, it's the old one.

This lens was not on my radar, and the reviews I have been reading are mixed. Many say it is soft in the corners, but for a wide angle zoom I am not sure if some people have unrealistic expectations?
 

AbortionSurvivor

Active Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,009
Nor. Cal
My wide angle use is mostly outdoors, so speed isn't a top priority. But if the image quality is on par with the 17-40, then why not go with the faster glass?

If you don't need the speed, go with the 17-40. With the money you save, you could get a high quality CPL. CPL has more utility, IMO.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
30
Total visitors
118

Forum statistics

Threads
369,495
Messages
16,889,524
Members
86,873
Latest member
vitalesan