16-35mm f2.8 - v - 17-40mm f4

Can anyone offer an opinion on the main difference bwtween these 2 lenses (apart from the obvious f-stop!) Clearly one is around double the price of the other no matter where you buy it so can onyone say that the 16-35 is worth the extra money? If it is, I'll buy if, but if the difference is minimal, then I can't see how the extra money will benefit.

Having said all that, I'm willing to pay for quality and am willing to chop in my Sigma 10-20mm f3.5-4.5 as well as my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 to help fund this lens.

Any advice appreciated.

Phil

Depends what you use it for. Do you have a FF?
For landscape, you will be fine with 17-40 or zeiss 21mm f 2.8
If you need AF and f2.8, go for 16-35

phil1664 wrote in post #12633195
Having said all that, I'm willing to pay for quality and am willing to chop in my Sigma 10-20mm f3.5-4.5 as well as my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 to help fund this lens.

Something tells me you don't have full frame.

Nope, I don't have full frame at the moment, got a 1d Mk2 at the moment so 1.3 crop, but looking to aquire either a 5d Mk2 or a 1ds Mk3, depends on the costs ets.

As for use, mainly weddings, portraits & commercial photography, so I need the AF for he weddings. I've got a 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS but Im missing the at the wide end. The Sigma was OK but is not a top end lens, the light is not equal across the image at all and was a good servant over the last 5 years, but time to go I'm afraid!

I'm tempted to go the extra mile and pay for the 16-35 as I may have to shoot wide open on occasions, but still can't decide if it's worth the money or just ramp up the ISO for a couple of shots!!

Are you talking about the 16-35L or the 16-35L II. There's a big difference between those two.

If you're talking about the original, I wouldn't bother. I was in the same dilemma myself. I couldn't afford a 16-35L II and all the samples and reviews I saw of the 16-35L vs. 17-40L pointed me toward buying the 17-40L. I was very happy with it for a while, but then I saved up some money and decided to move halfway around the world and travel a lot, and wanted that extra mm on the wide end and the quickness of the 2.8, so I sold the 17-40L and picked up the 16-35L II, which I am very happy with.

For weddings and stuff I'd definitely go with the 16-35L II, the extra wideness of that lens coupled with the extra stop would be very helpful for indoor low light stuff. However, if you can't afford that, I'd go with the 17-40L + a 1.8/2.8 prime of some sorts over the 16-35L.

phil1664 wrote in post #12634959
Nope, I don't have full frame at the moment, got a 1d Mk2 at the moment so 1.3 crop, but looking to aquire either a 5d Mk2 or a 1ds Mk3, depends on the costs ets.

As for use, mainly weddings, portraits & commercial photography, so I need the AF for he weddings. I've got a 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS but Im missing the at the wide end. The Sigma was OK but is not a top end lens, the light is not equal across the image at all and was a good servant over the last 5 years, but time to go I'm afraid!

I'm tempted to go the extra mile and pay for the 16-35 as I may have to shoot wide open on occasions, but still can't decide if it's worth the money or just ramp up the ISO for a couple of shots!!

If you already have the 24-70mm, I wouldn't go for either the 16-35 nor the 17-40. On a crop body, they are not wide enough IMO. I rather go with the 10-20mm or tokina 11-16mm. The Tokina will be my pick and it has f/2.8 too, great lens for the money~!

One does 2.8 the other does f4.

The f4 can't do 2.8.

The extra stop can really be a life saver.

If you do not need to shoot at f2.8 often then the 17-40 f4 is better for your needs.

Simple decision. You either need f2.8 or not. That's what it boils down to. We can't make up your mind for you!

not so simple as you don't always know if you "need" the 2.8 until you use the lens .i'd take the 16-35 ii but might end up getting the 17-40 since it costs 1/2 less and i already have 77mm filters. 82mm is too big.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12635342
not so simple as you don't always know if you "need" the 2.8 until you use the lens

You don't?

I usually know whether I "need" the f2.8 before I even use the lens.

Of course, it depends on usage. OP mentioned weddings. Indoors? Outdoors? With or without flash, etc.

ifs its version 1 then get the 17-40, version II is better.

nicksan wrote in post #12635541
You don't?

I usually know whether I "need" the f2.8 before I even use the lens.

Of course, it depends on usage. OP mentioned weddings. Indoors? Outdoors? With or without flash, etc.

not necessarily. i never thought i'd need 2.8 on a UWA but still went with the tokina for some reason. after using it i was glad i got a 2.8 even on a UWA and not a slow sigma 10-20.

i'd try to get the 16-35 but 17-40 is a pretty good deal that's hard to beat.

question.. i also have a 17-40 f4 .. planning to upgrade to 16-35 2.8 . is the 2nd version that much better than the first?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #12635013
Are you talking about the 16-35L or the 16-35L II. There's a big difference between those two.

If you're talking about the original, I wouldn't bother. I was in the same dilemma myself. I couldn't afford a 16-35L II and all the samples and reviews I saw of the 16-35L vs. 17-40L pointed me toward buying the 17-40L. I was very happy with it for a while, but then I saved up some money and decided to move halfway around the world and travel a lot, and wanted that extra mm on the wide end and the quickness of the 2.8, so I sold the 17-40L and picked up the 16-35L II, which I am very happy with.

For weddings and stuff I'd definitely go with the 16-35L II, the extra wideness of that lens coupled with the extra stop would be very helpful for indoor low light stuff. However, if you can't afford that, I'd go with the 17-40L + a 1.8/2.8 prime of some sorts over the 16-35L.

sskrnguy wrote in post #12635936
question.. i also have a 17-40 f4 .. planning to upgrade to 16-35 2.8 . is the 2nd version that much better than the first?

2nd version is better in the corners and more flare resistant. Of course it also has the blasted 82mm filter size!

sskrnguy wrote in post #12635936
question.. i also have a 17-40 f4 .. planning to upgrade to 16-35 2.8 . is the 2nd version that much better than the first?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx