Indecision time

[erding]

Using a 20D and want to get a wide angle zoom to do landscape shots. Short listed at present are the EF 17-40mm or the EF 16-35. Any recomondations or advise please would be appreciated

[tim]

Welcome to POTN :)

Consider the Tokina 12-24 as well, it's apparently quite nice and quite wide - one's in my shopping cart ready for my next impulse buy at B&H :)

[weemannie]

Welcome to the forum.

I have the 17-40L and am very pleased with the results. Comments by others on the forum seem to indicate that it is a popular lens. A big advantage to me is that it is very light for an 'L' lens. I've no experience of the 16-35, so can't advise - sorry!
Have you considered the 10-22, now that's w-i-d-e and very light, and produces great images. :D

[Andy_T]

Take a look at this comparison. (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

Bottom line ... unless you NEED the speed of f/2.8, the 17-40 is just as good for half the money.

EDIT: fixed the link, should work now ***********************

Best regards,
Andy

[Mohawk]

For WA landscapes, I like my Canon 10-22mm and Canon 16-35mm. Both lenses are good performers, I guess I got lucky. If you really do allot of landscapes, I would suggest one of each, a 10-22mm and either the 16-35mm or 17-40mm. Some times the 10-22mm is to much, where the 16-35mm fits the bill. It will depend on your needs and budget. If I had to get only one, it would be the 10-22mm. I have no expierience with the 17-40mm, but have heard good comments on it.

Just my .02

Mike

[sdommin]

Take a look at this comparison. (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml)

Bottom line ... unless you NEED the speed of f/2.8, the 17-40 is just as good for half the money.

Andy, this comparison is the 16-35L vs. the 17-35L not the 17-40L. I believe that the 17-35L is not available anymore.

In any case, the 17-40L is a good lens at a decent price.

[RikWriter]

Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 12-24. It's awesome for landscape shots...I love mine.

[erding]

Gentlemen

Thank you all for your welcome, input and suggestions.

Prior to my post I had researched examples of both lenses, amongst others. To my eyes whilst the 16-35 in most cases appereared to have 'an edge' in terms of sharpness over the 17-40 it was always only 'an edge' as opposed to a outstanding difference and in that respect I would consider that for my current needs/usage the 17-40 would suffice.

However, if I consider future usage maybe the better choice would be the 16-35

To complicate the matter further, in the UK, at present, the 16-35 sells new for around £1050 whilst the 17-40 around £550. Currently Canon are offering a £70 rebate on the 17-40 and also on the 10-24 which sells for around £525. Therefore, nett of rebates, it would be possible to obtain the 17-40 and the 10-24 at a cost less than the 16-35. Possibly this might be a better choice.

Any suggestions please

[Andy_T]

Andy, this comparison is the 16-35L vs. the 17-35L not the 17-40L. I believe that the 17-35L is not available anymore.

Scott, thank you for pointing that out.

There are 2 comparisons on Luminous landscape, and I was in a hurry and linked the wrong one.

I fixed the link, it works now:

Canon 17-40mm f/4L vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

Therefore, nett of rebates, it would be possible to obtain the 17-40 and the 10-24 at a cost less than the 16-35. Possibly this might be a better choice.

Any suggestions please

I would suggest getting the 10-22 first and trying it out.
Unless you need the 22-40 range or the image sharpness&speed of the 10-22 is not sufficient, you might not need the 17-40. So one part of the question is ... what other lenses do you have?

Look here (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml) for a (smaller) review of the EF-S 10-22 lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[Hellashot]

Be sure to take a look at the Sigma 12-24. It's awesome for landscape shots...I love mine.

I second that. And the lens can be used ona full frame and film camera, which the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24 cannot. Sigma also has a 10-22 one coming out soon that cannot go on a film camera.

[erding]

Andy

Currently have Sigma 24 - 60 F2, Sigma 28-300 F3.5-6.3, Sigma 150 F2 macro, Canon 70-200 F2, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

+ selling Sigma 170-500, Tokina 20-30

[blue_max]

From your lens selection, you know what advantage a faster f stop will give. For landscapes, a fast lens is rarely a requirement.

That rules out the 16-35 as unnecessary (and saves you a bundle).

Down to the 17-40 or the 10-22. If you put aside the issue of the EF-S mount, it really is down to which focal length you prefer. If buying both is an option, then you are away. If you have to buy one first, the L lens will probably be the one that will be easiest to sell (if you had to) as it has the biggest potential market and established reputation.

My personal experience, is that I wanted to go 'extreme' for greatest impact. When I because more competent, I focussed more closely on composition. This is in general and not specifically with wide angle. To be honest, WA is not my thing and I just wanted it covered, for completeness sake, so went for the 17-40L.

You will have as many people tell you one length is better than the other. Look out for some samples and if very wide is your thing - you've probably decided.

Graham

[Sean-Mcr]

I had the 16-35 L as i wanted to be able to take available light shots when i go indoors. If you're really mainly interested in landscapes, then alot of the time you're not going to need the extra stop.

Having said that, once the nights draw in over here, 2.8 would be very handy for landscapes ect. But then you might live in florida where it doesn't go dark at 5pm in september:)