16-35 2.8 or 17-40 4 and 35 1.4

[Tapeman]

I am looking to upgrade from my 20-35 3.5-4.5 to either the 16-35 2.8L or the 17-40 4L and the 35 1.4L.

I usually shoot with zooms because i only want to carry 3 lenses.
I really fancy the 35 1.4 but when I had a 50 1.4 I almost never used it (on a film body)
Currently my fastest lenses are f2.8
So should I go for the 16-35 & forget the 35 1.4?

I shoot a wide range of subjects, probably most of my wides will be landscapes.
I am going around and around on this one.

[csnudelman]

I would kill for a 16-35L. Someday I do hope to have a 17-40L but not with the 35L. Being retired I don't have the budget for photo gear I once did. Buy the 16-35L and know you are envied.

[AjP]

if u only shot outside get 17-40 if you want to have light condition flexibility for inside-outside 16-35... I'm personaly going towards 16-35

[schmoelzel]

I had the 16-35L and it is an awesome lens!! Very sharp at both ends and seems to be sharper at the short end which is unusual but great for landscapes and strange perspective close-ups. I really liked mine but was always using it at 35mm so I decided to sell (Drisley owns this lens now) and managed to find the 35L. The 35 is a superb lens but does require a little more work when shooting wide-open because of the narrow DoF. Not as convenient as the zoom but if you are going for optimum sharpness, saturation, and detail.........it can't be beat. Here is a thread where I posted a few shots with the 35L............enjoy whichever you get; they are all good!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79203

[HKFEVER]

For regular short shooting trip, I always carry 16-35 f2.8L;) , 24-70 f2.8L & 70-200 f2.8L IS.

With these 3 L, you have cover good range

[xuxu1]

if u only shot outside get 17-40 if you want to have light condition flexibility for inside-outside 16-35... I'm personaly going towards 16-35
Agree!

If you only shot outside get 17-40 if you want to have light condition flexibility for inside-outside 16-35...

I already have the 17-40L. I´m extremly happy with it. Don´t need a wideangle lens for indoor shooting. Next two lenses on my shopping list are 24-70L and 70-200L IS. Now which one should i get first? :confused:

ED

[eosnob]

Have just acquired the 16-35L from this forum. Will be comparing it to my 17-40L this weekend.

[ed2day]

Personally I'd rather have the 17-40L than the 16-35L. But that's just the way I use it. Shooting landscapes outdoors on a tripod the aperture advantage is mostly negated and because I'm usually hiking the weight advantage of the 17-40 becomes important.

[drisley]

I can attest to the fact that the 16-35L is an amazing lens.
The more I use it, the more I like it.
As far as weight advantage goes for the 17-40L, in my opinion the 16-35L is already a great size, and very light imho.

[xuxu1]

I can attest to the fact that the 16-35L is an amazing lens.
Yes... i´m sure you made a correct statement... that is if you are seeing it from the "indoor shooting" point of view. I can assure you that i´m very happy with my 17-40L for outdoor shooting in "good light" conditions. I don´nt shoot (wideangle) indoors. Therefore a 16-35L would have been a waste of money for me (and many others that have the same shooting habbits as i do).

ED

[drisley]

I also like the extra depth of field control you can get with the wider aperture too.

[blinking8s]

What about the sigma 30mm?

[grego]

For regular short shooting trip, I always carry 16-35 f2.8L;) , 24-70 f2.8L & 70-200 f2.8L IS.

With these 3 L, you have cover good range

Yup, that's the 3 best lens to have from a photo journalists standpoint if they are using Canon.