16-35L or 10-22...advice needed because my sick head is playing games with me...

[Julius]

I'd sell the crop...buy a 5D Mark II with a 24-105 mm f4 L IS USM which gives you a decent wide angle with enough reach as a walk around lens. That combined with your 70-200 f4 will cover you in 99% of the situations. Whatever you end up doing...have fun.

[Colin]

Last week i purchased the 16-35 mk2 and to be honest i am finding it hard to use, its almost too wide. The struggle is composition and how to reframe to keep things out of the frame and just how close you need to get to objects.

Since going FF, I use the 16-35 a lot less, OTOH, when you go with the ability to go that wide, it allows for a lot of interesting possibilities, particularly in using the enhanced perspective to contrast foreground with background. I like going really wide and getting a whole lot of near ground combined with a whole lot of sky, ora far horizon and comparatively huge clouds (which tend to be right above me, but get pushed out front due to the perspective shift.


Shooting your toes can be fun too []

[EdN]

I'd sell the crop...buy a 5D Mark II with a 24-105 mm f4 L IS USM which gives you a decent wide angle with enough reach as a walk around lens. That combined with your 70-200 f4 will cover you in 99% of the situations. Whatever you end up doing...have fun.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

This is good advice. You may want to keep the 40D body for now but forget the 16-35 F/2.8 L. Instead, depending on your finances, get the 5D Mk II body or the 5D Mk II kit with the 24-105 F/4 L IS.


If you can afford the body only, you still have the 50 F/1.4 and 200 F/4 L IS to use with the new body.


If you buy the kit, you can try out the 24 mm focal length of the lens and see if it's wide enough for your needs. If 24 mm isn't wide enough, you can put the 16-35 or 17-40 mm on your shopping list.


I've got the 24-105 F4 L IS and it's wide enough for most of my needs and it's a great lens to boot too.

[Colin]

Today I wantedwider than 24mm on my 5D, but I left my 16-35 at home... []

[Gian Luca]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Bes,<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I read that your main objective for your wide-angle is Landscape photo so I share my criteria for choosing between the 17-40L and 16-35L.<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I have a FF camera, and I have a Sigma 17-35 f2.8 -3.5, that has problems so I am considering to change it. My dilemma is between the 17-40 f 4L and 16-35 f 2.8.<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]The major dilemma is that it is nice to have a f2.8 lens, but like you I use the wide angle primarily for Landscapes, in this case you close down to f.8 &ndash; f.11 and more most of the time to have the right depth of field. So you lose the large part of the advantage of the 16-35. <o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]17-40is lighter, al lot cheaper, and have a 77 diameter common to all my other Canon Llenses, so I do not need to buy and carry another set of Circular Polarizer and Neutral density, that I use often shooting landscapes.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]I do not like to take a lens that is considered worse than another, so I still have the dilemma, but I think that some of the cons of 16-35 like filters and little use of f2.8 in landescapes will convince me for the 17-40.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Last think IS is not important in a wide angle lenses, so I do not think Canon will put IS in any lens between 14 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]to 40 mm, do not wait for it.<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Gian Luca<o></o>

[Gian Luca]

Finally I decided,


I was really upset to have to carry filters for 1 lens, and I did not want to compromize with image quality, so I bought the 14 f2.8 L MKII.


Ciao

[Colin]

Sounds like fun.


Enjoy!

[Mendel Leisk]

I think your quandry is whether (and when) you want to switch to full frame. Per the other responders, I'm a little puzzed by your shunning your 17-85. It's seems a bit of a smoke screen you're foisting on yourself. It's a "decent" lens, with good range on crop factor. Main downside imho is it's way too slow for low available light shots. FWIW, your 50mm f1.4 will really shine in the lowlight department, on full frame. Hmm...:


With what you have now, I'd pick up a 10-22 and give it a try. If you do go to full frame (and don't retain your crop body) it should be fairly easy to resell the 10-22 without much loss.


If the full frame switch is imminent, I'd also consider the 17-40. It also makes a nice walk-around lens on crop bodies I would speculate, though I've not used that combo myself.