Rumors > Lenses

16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4

<< < (2/10) > >>

birdman:
the 16-35 gets bashed so much because of price premium. The 17-40 is pretty close at f/8 and smaller.

Samples vary just like with any glass. My 17-40 is decent, but mushy in corners even at small f stops. I rented 16-35 and I swear it was better in the corners, definitely below f/8.0.

I would hold out and see if anything gets released this year. The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.

And lastly, there are two Zeiss 21mm Distagons on ebay right now for 1,485 OBO, slightly used. I am strongly tempted to buy one. If they will take $1,300 shipped i just might pull trigger. Used 17-40L anyone?

Mt Spokane Photography:
Wide angle lenses seem to be a weak spot in Canon's line up for FF bodies.  They are good, but...

I sold my 17-40 L and ended up with a small cheap tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that cost me $150.  I like it much better than the zoom, even though its not perfect.

Canon's TS-E 17mm is supurb, but MF and $$$$.

Of course, if you have a crop body, just get the 10-22mm zoom.

KreutzerPhotography:
I have the 16-35 on a crop sensor and use it  as a wide to standard and I have fallen in love with it. I dont really shoot architecture mainly weddings and concerts. A great lens and I have had little to no flare even when shooting toward the sun.

akiskev:
Some people OBVIOUSLY (-7 karma) don't believe me about the flare issue.
See for yourselves newbs.

28mm f/11



KreutzerPhotography:
My apologies for not having the same issue with the flare. Because it is not a problem for me I must be a "newb".  For my work it has not been an issue.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version