http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l- An entire Lightstalkers thread via RSS/XML. en-us I have an opportunity to buy a Canon 17-35 2.8 L lens second hand... Some of you who use it...what's your take on it? Any good, or should I go for the 16 - 35 2.8 L II/III? Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:56:44 +0000 http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l- I hear the 16-35 is sharper than the 17-35 by a smidge and I like that the 16-35 is gasketed for bad weather. The 17-35 is not a bad lens though. I have shot with the 16-35 for almost five years now and it is a freaking workhorse of a lens. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:08:41 +0000 http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l-#102591 The 17-35 wasn't as good as the 20-35 it replaced. However the 16-36 is very nice and the new version II is more corrected for the newer full frame Canon chips. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:25:06 +0000 http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l-#102593 I've been shooting with the 17-35 for almost five years and it's great. I can't compare it to the other lenses b/c I haven't used them. I have considered the 16-35 (not the II, it's too big) but haven't sprung for it and honestly it's not on my radar screen anymore. If the 16-35 is sharper then maybe that's worth considering. But I've shot with my 17-35 95% of the time over the last five years and still use it today, so for me it was a fine investment. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:01:08 +0000 http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l-#102602 Depends on what you're paying, the new 16-35 2.8 mark ll is $1300, but it's a fine piece of engineering ! so, I guess if you are getting the older version for less than $500, not bad at all!!!! I personally would go for the 16-35 mark 2. cheers Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:39:29 +0000 http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/what-s-your-take-on-canon-17-35-2-8-l-#102636