Micah Walter

The following is part of a series of articles describing the type of camera and computer equipment I use on a daily basis. These are not exactly reviews of the equipment, but more of just a synopsis of what I like to use and why. I will be adding to this section as time permits, and you will always be able to read through them by selecting the In The Bag category or one of its sub-categories in the sidebar.

I bought this lens used from a fellow photographer in D.C. When I bought it, it was pretty used. The switch that turns the auto-focus on and off was broken off, exposing the camera’s insides. But he gave me a pretty good price, and so, desperate for an affordable 17-35 f/2.8, I grabbed it and sent it off to Canon for repair. The repair was actually pretty inexpensive (I guess it’s a fairly common repair) and when it came back it was like a brand new lens.

This lens has since been discontinued and replaced by the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM lens, which aside from being 1mm wider also boasted a lighter and slightly smaller package. Last year the 16-35 was again updated and the current model is now called the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM.

Anyway, all three are great lenses, and you can probably get a decent condition 17-35 model off ebay for a steal.

This is my main lens and whenever I go out shooting I almost always walk out the door with this lens attached. It can be a little hard to focus, but once you get the hang of it, it is really sharp and distortion free. The USM (Canon’s Ultrasonic Motor) is so quiet that I sometimes wonder if the lens is working at all.

On my 20D this lens equates to about at 28-56, which is pretty nice. However, I really wish I had a full frame camera as this lens would be an absolute dream to use full-frame, negating the need for my 10-22 all together.

Every photojournalist should start out with a 17-35 f/2.8. It is really the mainstay lens. There are plenty of people who believe a fixed focal length 28 is better, but I disagree. Fixed lenses are nice, and you can get some pretty fast glass like the Canon EF 24 f/1.4L USM, but the 17-35 is a much more versatile option, and if you are just starting out, it is really worth the money. I guess this is my option, but if I had to buy a body and lens, I would get something like the 20D and a 17-35 f/2.8.

On that note, I would like to point out a few other lens options in this range. Canon makes a few lenses to choose from. There is the current 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, which is probably the most expensive option. But they also have an f/4 version which is also an L series lens for less money.

Personally if I was looking to save money I would rather look for an older 17-35 f/2.8 on ebay, or try out the Tamron or Sigma equivalent. Having that extra stop is nearly mandatory, and is the single reason I find myself shying away from using my 10-22 and going for the 17-35 in many situations.

If you can find a deal like I did, I would strongly recommend this picking one up. The benefits of the newer 16-35 model don’t really justify the expense, and once you have it cleaned and checked by Canon, it will be like a brand new lens, ready to serve you for years to come.

---

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 18th, 2007 at 8:06 am and is filed under In The Bag, Lenses. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.