17-40 l advice vers the 16-35l 4.0

[beforeEos Camaras]

Nice, glad you got what you were after! Post some pics from it when you get a chance.

Cheers,
d.

I will the lens is fantastic eps with sunsets a very small amount of lens flare.

It also makes great sunstars at f/16

sunset by joseph kelly, on Flickr

 

[slclick]

sweet star
red butte gardens, slc, utah

 

[Deleted member 91053]

thank you all for the input. I have gone with the 16-35l 4.0 is lens

even the store where I buy my gear also recommended the 16-35 and I had a full hands on with the lens.

it was the right choice. the lens rounds out my range I now can shoot 16-400 with 3 lenses

You made the right choice. Much as I liked my 17-40 for many years the 16-35 F4 is a significantly better lens in all departments and even equals/exceeds the wonderful (to my eyes) colours that the 17-40 gives.
Congrats on you 16-35 (I am delighted with mine) - it will be a long time before you will even consider replacing it!

 

[SUNDOG04]

I have the 17-40 for a number of years and supplemented it with the 24 IS lens. There are times I prefer a more compact lens and prefer this to use with neutral density filters for water falls and the 2.8 is a bit better and sharper for night photography. Overall I think the 17-40 is a decent lens, could be better in the corners for landscape work.

That said, buying now, I would definitely get the 16-35 IS lens over the 17-40. The IS is useful to me, regardless of what others say about not needed on a wide angle. Overall the 16-35 is a vast improvement (from what I read) over the 17-40. Upgrading from the 17-40 is second on my photo equipment updating. Adding a 14mm is priority, but also unaffordable at the moment.