16-35 vs 17-40

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

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

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.

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!

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

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].

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
<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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!
<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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Johnston

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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!!