Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by White Stormy, Dec 15, 2008.
is it worth an extra $700 if I'm not yet a millionaire?
of course it is, amirite?
Depends what you're shooting really. I had the 16-35 for a while, but sold it off to buy the 17-40 because I needed some more cash for the 300 2.8 IS.
I'm happy with the 17-40. If I'm inside and need light, I'll bounce a flash. But mostly I use the 17-40 for landscapes these days.
Why not pick up the older 17-35 f/2.8 L?
16 + FF =
Can't work without it.
If you can afford the 16 I say go for it. Sometimes you just need the extra stop.
If you are only going to be shooting outside/landscapes, then the 17 will probably be fine.
this lens is terrible on FF...
I recently purchased a 17-40 to compare it to the 17-35L and the 17-35 is softer at all apertures and teh corners look smeared. the 17-40 seems sharper then my friends 16-35 mkI, only thing it doesnt have is obviously the 1 stop advantage. It depends on what you need it for, if you will constantly be using the lens without flash in dark places, then i suggest saving up the monies and gettign the MKII version of teh 16-35 as its is superior to teh previous models, sharpness, flare resistance, contrast, and distortion control.