Just like the title says, I've always been awed by photos of the Milky Way and have long wanted to try it out. For the last four years I've been using a 5D1 and all my lenses are f/4.
But now I've got my 5D3 and am curious to know if my 17-40 is up for the job, or whether I should invest in a 16-35 or a 14mm 2.8. Obviously, the best way to find out would be to go and actually take some shots, but lacking a car makes that a bit difficult.
I intend to do some testing, but I'll have to wait until July when I do my 14 day self-supported cycling trip from Calgary to Banff to Jasper and back, but I thought I'd get your input. I'm going to rent either the 16-35 or the 14mm 2.8, and am curious to know which one you think would be better suited.
My gut tells me to go with the 16-35 and then sell my 17-40. I'm usually on a bicycle or hiking trip when I shoot, so simply swapping out the 17-40 for the 16-35 makes sense simply to keep the weight down. After all, it's easier to carry two lenses than three when weight is an issue. But, if the IQ of the 14mm 2.8 is much better than the 16-35, I'd consider it instead.
I'm curious to know your thoughts.