16 35mm or 17 40mm

[TARPONTIM]

Well i am ready for a wide angle for my 20d take cost out of the equasion wich one should i get. Thanks Tim

[Incomplete Pete]

When Canon made the 16-35 to replace the 17-35 f2.8, to accomodate the extra mm of wideness, they cut down on build quality. Thus, after long term use, the glass becomes loosened. One guy I know has gone through 3 of the 16-35mm f2.8 and he treats his kit very well.

I use the 17-40 and love it, it's perfect for price, quality and weight.

[Tom W]

When Canon made the 16-35 to replace the 17-35 f2.8, to accomodate the extra mm of wideness, they cut down on build quality. Thus, after long term use, the glass becomes loosened. One guy I know has gone through 3 of the 16-35mm f2.8 and he treats his kit very well.

That's the first time I'd heard of that issue. I do know that the 16-35 has a reputation of being a much better lens, image-wise than the older 17-35/2.8.

I use the 17-40 and love it, it's perfect for price, quality and weight.

The 17-40 and 16-35 are quite similar in image quality. Both are good choices.

[schmoelzel]

I just sold Drisley a 16-35 L and I found the build quality to be extremely good!! Typical L fit and finish.........optically very very good (ask Drisley if he likes his new lens!) I think there may have been quality control issues with this lens hence the many varied reports and reviews saying that it is not so good. I found it very sharp for a zoom (espcially wide-angle) and the colours are amazing. The one I had was very sharp wide-open and even more so stopped down a little........no complaints from me and I believe it when I hear that this is THE BEST ultra-wide from Canon.

[blue_max]

It's down to the f stop or money decision. They are very similar in optical quality (according to reviews I have read).

I have the 17-40 and 70-200f4 and fill in with primes. The quality is very high with both and very close to the primes ie fantastic.

Graham

[ddelallata]

try this link 16 vs 17mm (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

[Tom W]

Here's one for the 17-40 as well:

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/index.htm

[TARPONTIM]

need more imput thanks tim

[redbutt]

need more imput thanks tim

I've never used the 17-40, but I have the 16-35, and I love it. It's a great lens, and I've had no problems with it at all.

[BlueTit]

I am trying to make the same decision too, I want it for a walk around street lens, so I was thinking that as I only plan to walk around in daylight the slower 17-40 would do, or is there another reason to consider the 16-35? I will keep watching here for any advice.

[Sean-Mcr]

I found my copy too soft at 2.8 so i returned it. Though of course not wide, i just had more faith in my primes for shots at 2.8 and under. Making the extra money over the 17-40 pointless for me. I don't know if it Was my copy, but i'm not sure if that extra stop is worth the money going of my own experience with it.

I might look a 17-40 and a wide prime

[csnudelman]

I am trying to make the same decision too, I want it for a walk around street lens, so I was thinking that as I only plan to walk around in daylight the slower 17-40 would do, or is there another reason to consider the 16-35? I will keep watching here for any advice.

Another reason one may choose the 16-35 over the 17-40 is that with the 20D it's fastest and most reliable AF mode works only with lenses that have a maximum f/2.8 or faster opening.;)