Toughest lens decision?

[Tapeman]

I think it is the choice between Canon's 17-40L and 16-35L. I have read many posts on forums and almost everyone loves one of these lenses or both of them. It seems to come down to price verses one stop.

I expect that I will purchase one of them to upgrade from my Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5

If you can afford it (albeit a struggle for me) what do you recommend?

The second toughest decision is between the 70- 200L 2.8 or 4.0

[ssim]

I have the 16-35 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. In both choices for me it was about having the ability to shoot in lower light. Yes, they are both expensive but they worth the extra money in my opinion.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have the 17-40mm and for me at the wide end the extra stop was not important.

I think you are correct that the the f/2.8 vs. f/4 X $$ is the oly real deciding factor, as I believe otherwise the optics are damn near equal.

I simply do not ever need more than f/4 in that focal range. It is used mostly on a tripod stopped down with shutter release,. or inside at functions where i use an EX flash (or two)

At the 70-200mm focal range I feel it is more clear,. as (again for my own applications) the 70-200mm is a lens and range where there are times that all the speed of the f/2.8 will come into play. Too long range for flash, and shutter speeds become so important.

[DaveG]

I think it is the choice between Canon's 17-40L and 16-35L. I have read many posts on forums and almost everyone loves one of these lenses or both of them. It seems to come down to price verses one stop.

I expect that I will purchase one of them to upgrade from my Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5

If you can afford it (albeit a struggle for me) what do you recommend?

The second toughest decision is between the 70- 200L 2.8 or 4.0

I got the 16-35 for that extra one millemeter of wide focal length and for the speed. That was two years ago. If I was doing it right now I think that I would have purchased the 24-70 f2.8L and the 10-22. That would give me better superwide angle coverage and an excellent moderate wide angle to short tele.

But here's the thing. In about three years when Canon starts selling a full frame DSLR in the 20D's price range then my 16-35 f2.8 goes BACK to being a 16-35 not a 26-56. A good decision two years ago, not a partcularly good one right now, and maybe a terrific one in 2008.

[timmyquest]

I disagree entirely! Because it's wide angle you can deal with longer shutter times. I think the toughest decision is the 300 f/4 + 1.4 and the 400 f/5.6...then again, maybe thats just because thats next on my lineup.

[snibbetsj]

Being a prime person myself, I have the Tokina 17mm F3.5, Canon 24mm F2.8 and the Canon 35mm f2 is on the way. These pretty much cover the gamut you're looking for and provide excellent photos. JMHO

:)

[tim]

Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 F2.8? I have one and I like it, and it's a whole lot cheaper than the L lenses. It's reputation is that the image quality is pretty close to the Ls, but i've never used an L lens so I can't confirm that.

[Andy_T]

Tim,

your praise for the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is really appreciated (love it myself)
... but it's not exactly a wide angle lens :lol:

As to the original question ... I assume you have already consulted this comparison (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml). Not that it will add much to the discussion ... the bottom line is 'If you want that extra stop, go get it. But it'll cost you' :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[KennyG]

I disagree entirely! Because it's wide angle you can deal with longer shutter times.

You should think that response through a bit. If you have a moving subject (people for example) then longer shutter times are not the replacement for a 'faster' lens. Always be careful making assumptions that everyone elses shooting style is the same as yours.

[jbradc]

I have the 17-40 and love it. Read this review for a comparason.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

[billh101]

I've never used the 16-35 2.8, but for what it's worth, here's how I see it. Just last week I got the 17-40 4L and a 70-200 2.8L. I find the bigger, brighter aperture to be a big advantage for manual focusing. I expected the long lens to be harder to manual focus, but just the opposite is true. I can manual focus the 2.8 lens no problem, but it's not as easy to manual focus the f4 wide angle. Now, if that's not an issue for you, the 17-40 is a sharp, good looking lens. If I had to do it all over again, I think I'd buy the same lenses, because I can only put myself so far in debt at a time. But, I do hope to upgrade to the 2.8 wide angle in a couple years.