They both let in the same amount of light. The difference is that the 16-35 let's you go all the way out to f/2.8. If you're shooting landscapes (an ideal situation for the 17-40), you're rarely going to want that kind of DOF.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The canon 1.4 is very susceptible to damage. This is due to the old poorly designed front element focusing gearing and drive. I treat my gear well, mine still broke after a few years. Was gonna cost half it's price to fix two parts, not one but two parts. I bought the sigma, it is sharper and much better built. Research it.
Or to quote from that Luminous Landscape article:
"Relax, Bors. The landscape isn't going anywhere."
I never use the electronic level on my 7D - far too sensitive, nor the bubble spirit-levels on my tripod or monopod, instead, I find it easier to correct in post with the Ruler tool in PS. Your time is better spent getting your composition & exposure correct than your camera level.
Decision made. I'm going with a 5D2 with a Canon battery grip (I have BGs on my 50D and 7D so I'm used to the feel) and use the $1500 toward new glass or a higher MP FF Canon should one become available in the future. I like the idea of a Digic 5+ instead of a Digic 4 but my goal is to get started in the FF world. The 5D2 is the least expensive way to get a new camera and get into FF. I get a new body every 3 years and who knows what happens then? Thanks, everyone!
7D which is cheaper than the 5D series .... and with BETTER FEATURES? NO WAY!