Canon EF 17-40 f/4L | Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II
I like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight.
Quote from: Woody on March 10, 2014, 09:01:56 AMI like the idea of having a 17-40 f/2.8-4 as long as it's sharp from corner to corner and maintains the current lens weight. And half the price?
A refresh is needed since both have pretty soft corners - which is usually an undesired feature in WA or UWA lens.In fact a corner-to-corner sharp 16-35/2.8 would replace the need for a Nikon-like 14-24mm that Canon users sometimes feel the need for.
Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?I like my 16-35mm f/2.8 a lot and haven't noticed any problems with it.
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...
The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.