My best friend asked me once...


What to by 17-40 or 16-35?


Here is what I answered like a friend.


If You ask what to by between 17-40 f4 & 16-35 f2,8 is the same as You ask, do I need an 5 years old Mercedes Benz SL 220 HP or a Brand new Mercedes SL 320 HP!!!


In my personal opinion as a full time pro I can say this...


I am not used to make compromise between older (17-40) and newer (16-35), cheaper or more expensive... So my Clients can always get "The Best" for their money!


I will never say 17-40 f4 L is not good inough (I have used one before for nature)but 16-35 f2,8 L II is certainly much better! Double the price and You get what You pay for.


I have 15fish, 50f1.4, 85f1.2 L II 135f2 L 24-70f2.8 L, 70-200f2.8 L IS and finaly 16-35 f2.8 L II.


I have always tought I have inough...There is 15 and there's 24-70 in my bag, but 16-35 f2.8 L II is totaly diferent from 24-70 and 17-40 not to mention fisheye.


And If You by EF-S 17-55 now regardless to a "EF-S17-55IS" built and lens quality,


and a year from now You ll get or wish a full frame body You' ll have to sell it for 24-70 or 24-105...


So, my guess is always go with full frame lenses like 17-40 or 16-35 because they're bought perform excellent and one day You'll use them a lot.


17-40 f4 L on fujifilm 200 example


http://flickr.com/photos/mattassano/3214603859/


16-35 f2,8 L II with 1Ds mk III example


http://flickr.com/photos/mattassano/3268101470/


Best Regards,