Gear Talk > Lenses

17-40mm F/4 L or 16/35mm F/2.8 L I

<< < (2/5) > >>


--- Quote from: pwp on December 02, 2012, 05:45:39 AM ---You might glean a few well informed viewpoints from this piece from Luminous Landscape...

My feelings would be that the 5D3 sensor will punish the old 16-35 f/2.8. It was never a stellar lens at the best of times, performing only adequately on film bodies...let alone FF DSLR. I had one which was a constant disappointment. By contrast, the 17-40 which I have owned since they were announced in 2003 has been consistently excellent, currently spending a lot of time on a 5D3 body. Provided you accept that it can be a bit mushy wide open, keep in perspective that from f/5 it is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II.

If I was in your shoes I'd be going for the 17-40. If you NEED f/2.8 save some more for the 16-35 f/2.8II.


--- End quote ---

I agree with PW, who brings up all of the very valid, meaningful reasons ...especially if you are comparing the 17-40mm with version one of the 16-35mm.

Go with the 17-40mm. For L standards, the 16-35mm MkI isn't good at all.

Thanks for your advices guys  ;)

so in a close future my photo gear for nature and wildlife picture should be this one :

5D Mark III and 40D
17-40mm F/4 L
100mm macro F/2.8 L IS
70-200mm F/4 L IS
and a tele lens most likely the 400 5.6 L (a new version with IS and Weather sealing is welcome). i just order a 300mm  F/4 L IS 8)

Trust your eyes,if you can do a comparison shoot with both then make a decision,I like and continue to use my 16-35 L 1-the newer version 2 is sharper from 16- to about 20 mm

16-35L if you don't mind the weight otherwise 17-40L.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version