Canon 17-35mm f2.8L

[FarmerJohn]

Hi guys,

I have an offer for me to buy a Canon 17-35mm f2.8L for 600-800 hundred dollars. What do you think of that value?

One of the 16-35mm f2.8L's was on my future wish list, but this one is available now.

I can't seem to find many reviews of this one. It looks to me like an discontinued older version of the 16-35 f2.8L? Anyone used one, how is it?

Cheers,
John

[Clyde]

Hi guys,

I have an offer for me to buy a Canon 17-35mm f2.8L for 600-800 hundred dollars. What do you think of that value?


If it's a good version, it should be a nice lens. Check out this review on Fred Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=152&sort=7&cat=27&page=1). I'd wonder about focus speed on an older lens, but hell, an "L" is an "L" (http://www.fredmiranda.com/17_35VS16_35/).

That said, unless you are doing full frame stuff, you might be interested in the very well regarded 10-22, it runs around that price, though it is f/3.5-4.5.


Ta,

[adam75south]

if it focused ok and i have a full frame, i'd be all about it. what i like to do is check completed listings on ebay to see what something is worth. dunno if you'll find any or how far back you can look, but might be worth a shot.

if it's closer to the $800 range i'd say get the ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. it's crazy sharp, focuses fast and well also. i'd say its sharper than my 24-70mm f/2.8L was.

[michaelb]

I agree with Adam. I'd go with the 17-55 IS on a 1.6X crop if I wanted this FL at f/2.8.

17-35 is a strange FL on 1.6X crop - too short at the long end, IMO. Even the 17-40 isn't long enough on a 1.6X crop, IMO; when I want one lens for my 40D I usually choose the 24-105.

The 17-35 makes alot more sense on FF, but even then I'd go with the 17-40 f/4 instead as I don't need/want f/2.8 in an UWA lens.

[FarmerJohn]

Thanks for the thoughts guys. I've asked for some sample photos to see what the image quality is like, and then I'll try it in person before I part with any money.

I have the non-IS 18-55 kit lens, and when I checked all the photos I took with it, almost all of them were at the wide end. I hardly ever went to the 55mm portion of the lens. I'm looking for an upgrade for that, and I think I will want the 2.8 in many cases. Photography in dense forests doesn't work well without 2.8.

[adam75south]

maybe you need a tripod john. you'll get sharper pics with a tripod and kit lens at f/8 than this one at f/2.8.

[michaelb]

maybe you need a tripod john. you'll get sharper pics with a tripod and kit lens at f/8 than this one at f/2.8.

Ditto. Most of my landscapes are shot at f/8 or more and in the woods that means a tripod. I have a very light Manfrotto tripod that is easy to cary in its case slung over my shoulder or back.

[FarmerJohn]

You guys might be right. I have one tripod that I have used some. But it's rather bulky to carry around, especially on airline trips. So I haven't it used perhaps as much as I should.

The monopod I have is much more convenient, but has the stability issues inherent to a monopod.

Which manfrotto do you have? How is it for compactness?

[TheWengler]

Another vote for a tripod here. Using f/2.8 for landscapes is going to cause some DOF problems. Unless of course you're using it creatively. I have the Manfrotto 055XWNB. It's not compact at all. I got it for it's height. I wanted something that would expand close to eye level w/o having to raise the center column. Take a look at the Manfrotto 190X series for a possible compromise. I think there are some travel tripod designs as well. I'm not sure who makes them though.

[cdifoto]

800 is too high. 600 is about right.

[michaelb]

You guys might be right. I have one tripod that I have used some. But it's rather bulky to carry around, especially on airline trips. So I haven't it used perhaps as much as I should.

The monopod I have is much more convenient, but has the stability issues inherent to a monopod.

Which manfrotto do you have? How is it for compactness?

1. I bought a monopod and I never use it. I tested it vs handholding and it was no better.

2. Get a tripod that you will actually use. I have 2 Manfrotto tripods. One of them is heavier with a separate ball head, but the one I use most often is this one.....(Manfrotto 715B)...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/428995-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_715B_715B_Digi_Black_Tr ipod.html#specifications

....because it only weighs 2.5 lbs and it comes in a bag that you can sling over your shoulder. It has a built in ball head - they also make the same one with a pan-head if you prefer that. I hiked in the snow for 2 hours with it this past weekend - I wouldn't do that with my heavier tripod.

It wil reach 64.8 inches high, but it collapses to 17.9 "! - really nice feature - it will be headed with me to Mexico next week; fits in my suitcase without a problem.

Its a very nice tripod considering how inexpensive and light it is and I've used it for up to 30 second exposures without a problem. It won't go as low as my other, heavier Manfrotto for macro shots though, but for most landscapes it works for me.

Too bad Coldy's not around here anymore - I think he used to use this tripod as well. ;)

[TheWengler]

I hiked in the snow for 2 hours with it this past weekend - I wouldn't do that with my heavier tripod.

I've lugged my tripod on 6-8 mile hikes. There was no snow, but it's not much fun.

[FarmerJohn]

Yeah, that's mainly why I don't use mine. It's 30 inches collapsed, including the pan/tilt head. And it's pretty bulky diameter wise besides that.

[FarmerJohn]

So I held off on the lens purchase for the moment. Will probably wait until I have enough to get a full-frame camera at the same time. :)

Here's what I'm looking at now - Bogen Manfrotto 682B monopod with legs. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5495-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_682B_682B_Monopod_Black _.html

This one looks pretty sturdy according to all reviews, as opposed to some similar designs I've looked at. I'm gonna see if my local store has one I can try out. Anybody else use one?

[Rhys]

I have a Tamron 17-35 and to be quite honest, I don't find the range on a crop body is all that useful. I find it to be somewhat short.

My most used lens is my 17-85 but mostly I seem to be using that between about 24 and 70. I would therefore suggest that a 24-70L would probably be a better purchase. If, however, wide stuff is very much in your repertoire then more power to you if you feel this is the right lens. I would caution against impulse purchases based on price however in light of the economic situation in which we all find ourselves.

[FarmerJohn]

Thanks for the advice Rhys. I have one Canon lens in the 28-135 range, which I find to be pretty useful. I'm looking for something that's wider angle but higher quality than the kit lens I have.

Going to try to find a more usable tripod for now, as that's a cheaper option to get sharper photos with the current setup.