16-35mkii or 17-40 and 50 1.4

So I have a dilema. I love my 24mkii, but it isn't wide enough so I am selling it locally today. I am either going to pick up a 16-35mkii or a 17-40 and a 50 1.4. I have had three of these darn 17-40's, kinda a love hate relationship. The last one just wasn't a good match for my body, but it was a great match for a friend. So I want something wide and still want something fast for indoor shots. What do you recommend? I have scoured the thread comparing the 17 and 16, but really haven't found any info stating the 16 is that much better than the 17. If I got a fast prime the 2.8 wouldn't a bigger factor. It would be used more creative and landscape, some shallow dof would be nice too. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Richard

I had a 17-40L for a short while before moving to the 16-35L II and couldn't be happier with the switch. Never really had a problem with the 17-40L, but needed faster glass and the 16-35L II got the job done, not to mention that I believe that it takes sharper images as well.

I've owned the 17-40 a few times (and currently own one) and each has been superb. Personally, I go for route 2 and add the 50. I am usually not shooting really fast apertures at the wide end so I think I'd make more images adding the 50 than I'd lose by not having 2.8 @ 16mm but its really a personal shooting style preference.

I'm in the same boat. Not sure weather to go with the significantly cheaper 17-40 or go all out with the 16-35.

The 50 is super fun !!

Nikkor 14-24 plus an adaptor

It depends on what kind of photos you plan to take with the lens.

Both the 17-40 and 16-35 are bad at night, they have bad shapes for the stars and aberrations wide open, specially near the borders.
For daytime photography the 17-40 is really nice when used from F8 to F11.

The 16-35 didn't make any sense to me, it's much more expensive than the 17-40 and doesn't perform well at night (for me).

Chenger wrote in post #12178389
Nikkor 14-24 plus an adaptor

I hate it but I'm using this.

The Samyang 14mm F2.8 is also VERY nice.

I had the 16-35 II first, and after finding that I really only used it for landscapes and never really indoors (since my 24-70L was usually more then wide enough for me) I sold it to get the 17-40L and havent regretted it once. I hated the 82mm filter size on the 16-35 II since ALL my other lenses were 77mm or 58mm it was the odd ball. Meant I had to have expensive 82mm filters for it that were just for that one lens. IQ wise they are literally the same. f/2.8 vs f/4 on a UWA, well, thankfully you can handhold a UWA at slower shutter speeds, although for my uses I havent needed the f/2.8 at all. That and for landscapes its just still since you will almost always use f/8 or smaller anyway.

luigis wrote in post #12178415
I hate it but I'm using this.

Oh damn, I was joking there. You really go out of your way to squeeze every bit of Image quality out of your gear.

No need to feel bad though, Nikonians dont even have this option for the Canon Ef 70-200 F2.8 II.

What would you recommend for night photography then?

[/B][/B]

luigis wrote in post #12178415
It depends on what kind of photos you plan to take with the lens.

Both the 17-40 and 16-35 are bad at night, they have bad shapes for the stars and aberrations wide open, specially near the borders.
For daytime photography the 17-40 is really nice when used from F8 to F11.

The 16-35 didn't make any sense to me, it's much more expensive than the 17-40 and doesn't perform well at night (for me).

I hate it but I'm using this.

The Samyang 14mm F2.8 is also VERY nice.

With selling the 24mm I'd still want another fast prime unless the 100 f/2 did it for me. I'd go for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 over the Canon 50 f/1.4 and then get the 17-40L with plans to eventually sell it and get the 16-35L down the road. If you want wider there's also the Sigma 12-24mm but I haven't looked into it enough on how it performs, I do know that it can't accept filters if you're looking to use those. Then again if you're fine with manual focus and no zoom range under 24mm, the Samyang 14mm would be a good-priced buy as mentioned above.

Personally I'd opt for the 17-40 + 50. Unless you really need the 2.8, the 17-40mm performs very well.

I had the sigma 12-24, but I didn't like the quality from it and sent it back.

skater911 wrote in post #12178544
What would you recommend for night photography then?
[/B][/B]

I'd go with the 17-40 for daytime photography and use the 50 1.4 at night. If you need to go wider the Samyang 14mm 2.8 is worth the try.

i've never had the 17-40 but I love my 16-35ii, especially on the 1d mark iv dude you can't go wrong! I have a feeling if you get the 17-40 and the 50, you're going to end up selling the 17-40 in the long run and buying the 16-35 anyways. At least thats how I looked at it. I've never regretted getting the 16-35 once.