Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Soldier7518, Aug 13, 2010.
Sorry, I meant 17-35mm f/2.8L
Its 1:30am lol
Any opinions? Reliable?
The old one or new one the new is the 16-35/2.8 I have not used this lens but have heard many reviews on it saying it's a incredible lens and much better than the 17-40/4L. So yeah, I would buy one if I had the promes I wanted first and after the 24-70 & 70-200/2.8's
Damn, you should really change the name of this thread if possible, got me excited
From what I've read and seen the only advantage of the 16-35 over the 17-40 is a wider aperture. Image quality at equal apertures and focal lengths show little if any advantage of one over the other.
Any moderator feel free to delete, I'll repost.
They were both 16-35's. The original version wasn't as consistent in focusing as the newer version and wasn't as sharp in the corners from what I remember reading. If you need 2.8 the newer version is apparently the way to go. If not get the 17-40.
It looks like the mark II was a lot better all around: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results
Yep. I love my 16-35 f2.8LII. The 17-40 is a nice piece of glass, but I was not willing to compromise speed for cost on this one. If cost is the issue, I would look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Fast, great optics, cheaper plastic build and noisy motor and only for crop sensor but IQ wise I found it to rival the 17-40 from Canon.
If money is not the issue, 16-35 f2.8LII. It is hard to put down.
Separate names with a comma.