A&P 16-35/2.8L vs 17-40/4L

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by White Stormy, Dec 15, 2008.

  1. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    is it worth an extra $700 if I'm not yet a millionaire? :noes:
     
  2. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    of course it is, amirite?
     
  3. Keegan

    Keegan New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DC
    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.
     
  4. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    Why not pick up the older 17-35 f/2.8 L?
     
  5. Gvidon

    Gvidon New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    16 + FF = :wackit:

    Can't work without it.
     
  6. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    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.
     
  7. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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.
     
  8. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,489
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    thanks
     

Share This Page