16-35 f2.8l or 17-40f4l

[nairud]

I'm still condering which lens to get based on these 2. Anyone can give their opinions on which one should i get? the f2.8 is tempting as it is faster than the f4, but then... arghhh~

i cant decide which one to get. Price is another deciding factor where the f2.8 cost around rm6k while the f4l cost around rm2.4-2.7k

[danskim]

If price is a big factor, just go for the 17-40 and save a lot of money.

[adam LC]

I actually want the 16-35, but it sounds like the price is an issue so the 17-40 is probably the way to go. F4?? doesn't really matter if you're going to be shooting landscapes.

[Ephemeral]

I too was pondering over this and my conlusion was, if I wanted a wide angle lens to shoot city/landscapes I simply wouldn't shoot at F2.8. Once I thought about it that way the answer was rather obvious...

...Then I thought about situations where I needed to shoot at around 20mm in-doors in lower light situations and I thought that it would be a nice to have, though not essential.

[phangcht]

It would be nice to have f2.8 especially for indoor and low light situations. Heard that mark 2 is exceptional.

[Jim G]

Depends on what you're shooting. Just landscapes - at f/11 or similar there's probably not a great deal of difference between the two.....

Indoors, portrait work (some people use it for such), anywhere low light, those situaitons where you desperately need that 1mm extra... 16-35 has the advantage. Otherwise it's possibly overkill.

[Mole]

In my opinion if you buy the 2.8 then you will never have to wonder if you'll need it. If you buy the 4 then you might regret it later at a time when you needed the 2.8. Then again you could always buy the 17-40 and when you save some more money sell it and buy the 16-35.

[Humphrey]

I have the 17-40 f4. Its fantastic, for the price its a winner.

[nairud]

the price for the 16-35 is already an overkill. I've just asked the shop i frequent to, 17-40 f4l is going for rm2480.

come to think of it, low light ->flash. lol

[Woolburr]

I own both...the 16-35 gets most of the work on specialty projects that need that limited DOF an f/2.8 lens can give you...the 17-40 is the workhorse lens and sees far more use on landscapes and everyday shots. If I could only have one...the 17-40 would get the nod...it is sharper and the price is a whole lot more reasonable when it comes to most budgets.

[nairud]

Another thing i'm worried about is the bokeh. how is it? coz i thought i'd like to use it for portraits too apart from my prime

[nburwell]

The 17-40 is a great lens - you certainly can't go wrong with it. However, you have to keep in mind if you think you would use the f/2.8 on the 16-35. If you know you aren't going to use/need the extra stop, then go with the 17-40.

[nairud]

yeah, saw the sample pics already and it got me drooling. But like any other photogs, i'd prefer having the extra stop in lowlight but the price... urgh~

should i opt for a tammy 17-50?

[ed rader]

yeah, saw the sample pics already and it got me drooling. But like any other photogs, i'd prefer having the extra stop in lowlight but the price... urgh~

buy the 17-40L and 50 1.4. you'll save money and have better low light performance.

ed rader

[Quad]

I prefer primes for low light but for a crop camera wide angle fast primes seem to be rather rare.

One stop is not earth shattering enough for me to justify the weight never mind the cost.

Third rambling point. I am not sure I would find those lenses all that much use on a crop format. I think there are some ef-s lenses that matched better to the format.

The 17-40 is my favorite zoom lens and I have two zooms, the other being a 24-105. But it does need to be stopped down at least a half stop to be useable. I carry it but I doubt I would make space in my bag if it was much heavier. The hood is near useless and I do not carry it.

[ed rader]

Another thing i'm worried about is the bokeh. how is it? coz i thought i'd like to use it for portraits too apart from my prime

you really have to work at blurring the background with the 17-40L on a crop camera but from my experience the bokeh is pretty good.

ed rader

[Marbeck]

Go for the 17-40 as it is excellent for the price.

[ScottE]

I'm still condering which lens to get based on these 2. Anyone can give their opinions on which one should i get? the f2.8 is tempting as it is faster than the f4, but then... arghhh~

i cant decide which one to get. Price is another deciding factor where the f2.8 cost around rm6k while the f4l cost around rm2.4-2.7k

Your profile says your camera is a 350D/Rebel XT. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be a better lens than either the 17-40 or 16-35 for that camera. It has the f/2.8 of the 16-35, a longer zoom range than the 17-40, image stabilization and optics that are at least as good. My 17-55 has better optics than my 17-40 if I really want to pixel peep, but for actual printed pictures there is not much difference. Comparing prices, the 17-55 is about mid way between the 17-40 and 16-35.

As owner of both the 17-40 and 17-55, the 17-40 is my least used lens. The only time I use it is on the rare occasion when I use my film camera and need a super wide angle lens. If I had the 16-35 too, it would be sitting on the shelf beside the 17-40 most of the time.

[nairud]

I prefer primes for low light but for a crop camera wide angle fast primes seem to be rather rare.

One stop is not earth shattering enough for me to justify the weight never mind the cost.

Third rambling point. I am not sure I would find those lenses all that much use on a crop format. I think there are some ef-s lenses that matched better to the format.

The 17-40 is my favorite zoom lens and I have two zooms, the other being a 24-105. But it does need to be stopped down at least a half stop to be useable. I carry it but I doubt I would make space in my bag if it was much heavier. The hood is near useless and I do not carry it.
You mean the hood for 17-40? I read about that also but is it that useless? well it wouldn't look cool without the hood also right?:D

Your profile says your camera is a 350D/Rebel XT. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be a better lens than either the 17-40 or 16-35 for that camera. It has the f/2.8 of the 16-35, a longer zoom range than the 17-40, image stabilization and optics that are at least as good. My 17-55 has better optics than my 17-40 if I really want to pixel peep, but for actual printed pictures there is not much difference. Comparing prices, the 17-55 is about mid way between the 17-40 and 16-35.

As owner of both the 17-40 and 17-55, the 17-40 is my least used lens. The only time I use it is on the rare occasion when I use my film camera and need a super wide angle lens. If I had the 16-35 too, it would be sitting on the shelf beside the 17-40 most of the time.
i did consider the 17-55 f2.8 too but i have to add an additional rm1k for it. *sweat*

[mdrtoys]

I've had both and I ended up selling the 17-40, I found that the 16-35 (MK I) was significantly sharper then the 17-40. Once I compared the two I figured there was absolutely no reason to keep the 17-40.

For the money, the 17-40 is one of the best deals in the canon stable, but it didn't compare to my 16-35 in any way, shape or form.

[Quad]

You mean the hood for 17-40? I read about that also but is it that useless? well it wouldn't look cool without the hood also right?:D


i did consider the 17-55 f2.8 too but i have to add an additional rm1k for it. *sweat*

Yes that hood it is big and there are other things I can use the space in my bag for.