16-35mkii or 17-40 and 50 1.4

Get 16-35 Mark ii. I have one right now. I never have 17-40 so can not speak of it. One thing about 16-35 mark ii, it smokes my 35L 1.4 at any f stop from 3.2 and on. I might to have to send my 35L in but I can not imagine the image can get any sharper then 16-35 ii. Good Luck

Now I am getting even more confused. I don't think I really care about the 2.8, but is the 16-35 really that sharper than the 17-40?

skater911 wrote in post #12187714
Now I am getting even more confused. I don't think I really care about the 2.8, but is the 16-35 really that sharper than the 17-40?

I can say one thing, out of all my L lenses, yes 16-35 ii is the sharpest. It shines from f3.2 and on.

i prefer 17-40 + 50 1.4 since i mostly shoot with small aperture with wide lenses..

I own the 16-35, which I really like, but have used 17-40 and also met a lot of people praising what the 17-40 can deliver.
If I was to do it again, I would have gone straight for the 17-40. In terms of sharpness the two are almost identical (you can even find posts from people that claim the 17-40 is sharper...).
I find the extra stop of 16-35 to be not so important in those focal lengths, for what I shoot. (Bokeh is usually not needed in wide angles and I handle low light on a tripod).
Now, 17-40 plus 50, yeah, go for it.

Since that's only my opinion based on what I personally shoot, just try to foresee how much you'll be using it at 2.8. If you believe that handheld in low light will be a considerable part of what you shoot, yeah, go for the 16-35.
Cheers,
G.

P.S. Something that is not mentioned: The 50 f1.4 is such a beeeaaauuuutiful piece of glass and value for money...

I have the 17-40 and adore it, but I have always wondered if the 16 controls the distortion any better. Other than the bent lines in the edges it is a super sharp lens.

Well I changed it up a little, I bought a 35L. Now I will save a little more and get the 17-40. I like the fact that it is a 77mm thread, since I already have 77mm filter adapter.