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.