16-35 vs 17-40

[MAT67]

Hello Everyone... Aside from the price, I am trying to decide which lens makes more sense at this point. I currently have a 70-200, 85mm, 100mm macro and my pitiful kit lens--18-55. So the last is the one I am replacing. I want L series, as I plan on upgrading my body in the near future. I need opinions on a good addition to this collection in this range lens. I need more of a landscape or everyday lens at this point. I don't have any wide angle so I definitely need that. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[twistedphrame]

It's not as wide as the 16-35 or the 17-40 but I LOVE my 24-70 f/2.8L, I've never used the other two but I find it always nice to have lenses run into one another (i.e. with lens changes you'll be able to work from 24-200mm) as apposed to having breaks in your range (missing out in 30-35mm on the others).





just something to consider,


~Jordan

[Daniel Browning]

I wouldn't call your 18-55 pitiful -- it is sharper than the 17-40, despite costing 4 times less, including I.S., and more range. Using the 17-40 on a crop camera will be a downgrade from your existing 18-55 in several ways. It really shines on full frame though. As for the choice between 17-40 and 16-35, it mostly depends on what f-number you need, IMHO. If you'll be doing f/8 on full frame, it doesn't make much sense to shell out for the 16-35. But f/2.8 is very well worth it for low light IMHO.

[MAT67]

Would you consider the 16 a good everyday lens? I am torn, now thinking maybe I need to also consider the 24-70?? So confused!

[MAT67]

You have me thinking I should consider it as well.. thank you

[Dave Johnston]

I went from the kit 18-55 to a 17-40, although I have not had the experience with loss of sharpness that Daniel was referring to. I may have had an off copy of the kit lens, but once I switched over I hada dramatic increase in image quality. Not to mention, I was getting twice the light in the lens on the long end. 4 vs 5.6 anda terrific increase in focus speed and accuracy. Granted, the kit did have the IS but at those focal lengths I can get away with hand holding since details get so small at 17mm.


The battle between the 16-35 and 17-40 is not as easy to call. The 2.8 is very appealing, but for me the price tag was a bit of a turn off. Granted, you get twice the light, but you lose 5mm on the long end. I agree with Daniel in saying that if you don't see yourself utilizing the larger aperature, I would save mymoney....


.......and put it towards a 24-70 2.8 [:P].

[twistedphrame]

The 24-70 is my everyday lens and is on my camera 95% of the time, then again I'm generally not shooting stuff from a distance. One thing I've noticed is that (especially indoors) at times I want something a little wider due to the 1.6x crop, that's the only real down side I've had with this lens, it's a bit of a beast at around 2lbs but I grew up cutting firewood and digging holes so the weight doesn't bother me too much though I've heard lots of complaints about that.

[MAT67]

I'm not worried about the weight, my 85mm is very heavy, but it takes a fantastic shot. I am only worried about wide enough because my collection thus far is on the other end of the spectrum. thanks for the advice...

[peety3]

I wouldn't call your 18-55 pitiful -- it is sharper than the 17-40, despite costing 4 times less, including I.S., and more range. Using the 17-40 on a crop camera will be a downgrade from your existing 18-55 in several ways. It really shines on full frame though. As for the choice between 17-40 and 16-35, it mostly depends on what f-number you need, IMHO. If you'll be doing f/8 on full frame, it doesn't make much sense to shell out for the 16-35. But f/2.8 is very well worth it for low light IMHO.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I have the 18-55IS, had the 18-55 non-IS (perhaps mark II, whatever came with the Rebel XTi back in the day), have rented the 17-40 on multiple occasions, and own a 16-35II. I do not consider the 18-55 to be a great lens, from build quality to optics. The 17-40 has served us well every time we rented it, but I found too many occasions where I suspected I'd want f/2.8 and I'm glad I got it. I tend to buy for the long haul, and the 16-35 was the right choice for me.

[peety3]

Would you consider the 16 a good everyday lens? I am torn, now thinking maybe I need to also consider the 24-70?? So confused!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





You mean the 16-35 right? I can see the 16-35 being part of a pair of everyday lenses, if you have a second body where you can bring the 70-200 or some other telephoto, especially with a 50mm handy. I can't see the 16-35 being your primary lens on a single camera setup.

[peety3]

The battle between the 16-35 and 17-40 is not as easy to call. The 2.8 is very appealing, but for me the price tag was a bit of a turn off.


It is very appealing, and it's come in oh-so-handy on many occasions. Like June, when my 1D Mark III was in the shop, and we were "slumming it" with a 40D and a Rebel XTi. 16-35/2.8 on the 40D and 85/1.2 (borrowed) on the Rebel was a very functional pairing at a bar, a bowling alley, and a jazz club.

[MAT67]

yes, the 16-35. I think you are right it would have to be paired. I am a single camera outfit though, so I am trying to make that part work.

[Keith B]

I tried to get away with the 16-35 as my everyday walk-a-round but it just can't get in tight when you need it. So I bought the 24-70 and it is on my 5DmkII 75% of the time. In fact my 16-35 is my least used lens now (70-200 2nd most used). I love it and wouldn't part with it but with the 24-70 being so versatile and ridiculously sharp it is the work hors and I now definitely endorse the 24-70 over the 24-105.

[Fink_Studios]

With the range you all ready have I would have to say the best option for you would be the 24-70. I think with the 16-35 and the 17-40 you would be disapointed with the long end it just doesn't realy have enough reach to be that all purpose lens.

I have shot with all three lens the 24-70 is by far the most used out of my kit.

Good luck with your purchase.

[Gina Franco]

I own both the 16-35 and the 24-70, and I love them both, but they are very different lenses. I was in the same boat you're in now when I bought the 16-35: I wanted a wide angle zoom and couldn't decide between the 16-35, the 17-40, and the 24-70. In the end, I decided that with a crop sensor body, the widest angle zoom *might* be the most versatile option for me. I also decided that I would regret not buying the f2.8 since I mostly shoot indoors. That's how the 16-35 became the first lens I owed--besides my kit lens.


I enjoyed the heck out of the 16-35 when it first arrived, but it was also clear that I frequently wanted more reach and that the 16-35 isn't as versatile as I'd hoped, even on a crop body. It is a thing of beauty, but not for tight shots or faces, so I found myself putting the camera down in those situations or changing back to the kit lens.


I caved and bought the 24-70, finally, which is a gorgeous, versatile lens. Sharp, amazing color. Incredible. It *is* heavy, but I don't care. I carry it with me everywhere I go.


I doubt this helps you. You'll have to decide which lens is best for you, of course. Again: I wouldn't give up either lens--I love them both--but the 16-35 zoom became a kind of specialty lens for me. The 24-70 is my reliable everyday friend.


Best of luck!!

[MAT67]

Thank you very much for that information. You have actually confirmed my decision to buy the 24-70. I would love to eventually add the 16-35, but I think you are right the 24-70 will be my work horse and that is what I need right now. I absolutely love my 85mm L portrait lens, but I found myself needing more range with it, so I think this is the right decision. Thanks a lot, you hit the nail on the head for me!!