I'm thinking of getting rid of my 70-200mm f4l IS for a 17-40mm, because focal is just too long for me. But, I heard that the 70-200mm is sharper, but how much sharper can it be compared to the 17-40mm, which is also a L lens? Appreciate any photo comparisons between these two lens.
Sharpness has a ton to do with technique. If a lens is mounted on a tripod with the aperture set to it's sweet spot and the shutter is released with a remote trigger and is then compared to an image made handheld with a wide open or fully stopped down aperture at either extreme of the lenses focal length with a manually released shutter the comparison can't be valid. The 17-40 mm isn't even in the same focal length range as the 70-200. I'd recommend renting the 17-40mm and making your own tests.
save you money and just by it then you will have a good wide lens and a good long one that you already have.
Yup, I wouldn't trade a 70-200 for a 17-40. I have both, and I need both. Life without the 70-200 isn't life at all. As for the sharpness of the 17-40, it can hold its own. I love my 17-40 and will never part with it. Here's a shot I took a couple weekends ago.
Depending on your situation, you may want to consider the 70-200 F4L. It's smaller and lighter and may very well be the sharpest lens I have ever used. If you need IS, go for it. I have the IS 2.8 also. If you don't have to have IS, save hte money and use the non IS F4.
I too say keep the 70-200 and get the 17-40. You'll have a decent range covered. I have the f4 non IS and the 17-40, love both....
Wow. I really should not reply to threads while watching football. SOrry. I totally missed the point that you already had a 70-200. In that case, no way I would give up that lens for a 17-40.
