SuzyView wrote in post #17461832
The 17-40 was one of my first L lenses and I treasure it. I have it on my 7DII right now. It is sharp and performs well for landscapes. Indoors, not so great, but for some of my winning shots, it's that lens. And I should upgrade to the 16-35, but I'm not sure I need to spend the extra money. It's not on my short list of new lenses. I will sell my 24-70 and get the new 24-70 before the 16-35.
On a crop, that's a harder call. The 16-35 f4 would still be sharper, but since you are not seeing the very corners of the 17-40 the difference will be much less than on FF. Only problem IMO is the 17-40 still degrades pretty quickly away from the center, so there still is some uplift to the 16-35f4.
Tom Reichner wrote in post #17463367
In fact, of all the landscape shots I've taken with my 24-105mm, hardly any have been taken at 24mm.
Probably better that way. 24mm isn't exactly a sweet spot for that lens. Once you get to 35-70mm its much, much better IMO for landscapes (less CA and distortion and sharper int he corners).
kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #17463779
I am replacing 17-40 with 16-35 F4L and I think I want to replace my 24-105 with 24-70 (not sure which variation yet) but worry about the loss on the long end... But also given the value of a 24-105 I might just keep it for it's lightness and versatility...
As said above, the 24-105 is not that bad above 35mm. Maybe not as good as the 24-70 II, but for the weight and versatility not bad, and you'll have up to 35 sharp with the 16-35. For instance stopped down to f8+, the 24-105 is just as sharp as the 50 1.4 across the frame. I know the 50 is not an L lens, but it is a prime and not considered 'soft' stopped down. I've looked around for something in the 50mm range that is stellar for landscapes and have come up short (24-70 II too heavy for just using it 35-70 stopped down to f8+, Zeiss too expensive really and also heavy). Waiting for a TS-E 45 II.