17-35 f2.8L vs 20-35 f2.8L vs 17-40 f4L

Hiya,

Looking at the wide angle range for APS-C DSLRs and think ahead of moving on to FF in a year or two!

I wonder if my money is better spent on which lens:

17-35mm f2.8L USM
or 20-35mm f2.8L
or 17-40 f4L

I've already purchasing a 24-105 f4L IS USM from someone.
So really looking at both the wide angle capability and also the extra f stop!

I know the 17-35mm and 20-35mm is discontinued models but thats why they are at similar price range secondhand to the current 17-40 f4L. The cheapest would be the 20-35mm but I don't gain that much more in terms of the wide angle and then the 17-35mm is the most expensive but it does have the extra 2.8 f stop and the 17mm wide angle.

I need to know where my money would be best place out of these three lenses.

I will not consider the 3rd party options as I know they do not hold their value like the canon's! As my jusitification to the Mrs is that these lens will improve on the picture quality of the 17-55mm kit lens and it will not loose their value and it is a good investment for better photos!

I have the 300d with the 85/1.8, 200/2.8 & 70-200/4. However for Wa and walkaround, I have been using lenses from Tamron & Sigma and found them to be as good, if not better than Canon lenses. I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 & 17-35/2.4-4. They are both excellent lenses. They cost 2/3 of Canon's, but also as fast. They are comparable in sharpness, contrast and colour, & they do hold their resale value. I have bought and sold many lenses over at Fredmiranda.com. I recentlly sold my Sigma 18-50/2.8 for $325, after buying it used for $340. I also sold a Caon 28-105 for $150 after paying $210. So I lost a greater percantage with the Canon. Please check out FM and 3rd party lenses.

Hows your böllöcks dog? ;-) Seriously, I have never used anyone of these lenses but read a great deal about them. Seems like the 17-35 f2.8L isn't that good, the 16-35 is better. But the 17-40 seems to be as good as the 16-35 but one stop slower. Many speak highly about the tamron 17-35 and it's not so expensive either.
--
Riku

I have a 20D, used to own a 17-35 2.8L and have used the 17-40 4.0L a fair amount. Now I own a 16-35 2.8L, which is fantastic.

My opinion: do not buy the 17-35 nor the 20-35. The 17-35 is soft and has low contrast. It is L in build quality but it just does not have that "L" magic in the result.

The 17-40 4.0L is a far better choice. Yes it is slower but if you can live with that you get very sharp pictures and great contrast and color in return. I myself decided to get the 16-35 2.8L instead because it is faster, but that is a choice that costs a lot extra.

Also take into account that 16 vs 17 mm makes a lot of difference and 35-40 at the other end too.

I have a friend who is about to make the jump to Digital - he has the EOS-1v & the 17-35 2.8L & told me that he is selling the 17-35 2.8L to get the 17-40mm 4.0L with his 5D, as well as the 24-105. I don't know what other lenses he has/uses.

i don't know all that much about the 20-35, but there's a great comparison of the 17-40 comparing it to the 16-35 and (briefly) the 17-35 at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
i've got the 17-40; maybe i'm lucky, but i find it absolutely flawless.
--

I agree with C4io and David's friend.

In my experience with 16-35 f2.8L vs 17-40 f4L (2 samples of each lens), the 17-40 was at least as good as the 16-35 at the wide end, possibly better in the corners, and possibly better at f4.

The 16-35 is slightly better past 30mm than the 17-40 is, but I'm typically using this in the 17-28mm range.

If Canon does come out with a 12-28mm f4L
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=17262930

then I may not need the 17-40 at all.

Hal

C4io said:

The 17-40 4.0L is a far better choice. Yes it is slower but if you
can live with that you get very sharp pictures and great contrast
and color in return. I myself decided to get the 16-35 2.8L instead
because it is faster, but that is a choice that costs a lot extra.

Click to expand...

David Hurt said:

selling the 17-35 2.8L to get the 17-40mm 4.0L with his 5D...

Click to expand...

--
- -

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that
here and there.

~ Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)

hello,

go for 17-40 L; you won't regret

claudio

FWIW, if you go by Photodo.com, the 20-35 is shown to be slightly better than the 17-35mm. Haven't used it myself.

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF20-35_28L-53.shtml