If money was no object ..

would you go with the 17-40 F4L or 16-35 F2.8L II on FF?

I have never used either and I have found myself wanting to go wider than the 24mm on the 24-70.

Just got my hands on a Big Stopper & FK , but don't have a wide adapter yet. Before I get a wide adapter, I'd like to see if I get more votes for the 16-35 because that'll mean a bigger adapter and screw on filters.

I'd go for a Rokinon wide and just go hyperfocal, but I wouldn't get any other use out of that lens; not too keen on MF for everyday use - much cheaper tho

This is a long term investment; I could sell the 24-105 F4L that's sitting in its bag doing nothing. The 16-35 II is almost as good as the 35L isn't it?

What to do???

If money was no object, I would get both.

ok, you got me there

so let me please rephrase ...... If money < $1350 was no object ...............

I've used both a few times, and I personally like the 16-35 better for my needs/wants.

If money was no object why would you even consider the rokinon? Of course th 16-35 is the top canon wide angle lens for now. (Excluding the 17TSE)

If money were not an object...

All thing being even sure the 16-35II, but in my reality the 17-40 at half the price is close enough.

Personally, I would get the 17-40L in that case, unless you do a lot of reportage style photography. The F/2.8 is really only required if you need every last bit of light with a WA reportage zoom, or for minDoF shots.

And after that I would start saving for a TS-E 17L, if you want to use it a lot at the short end, and considering you have 24-40 covered with two lenses, and 28-40 with another. Actually, I would sell two of those myself, so I would be able to get another lens more rapidly (sell 28-135 and either 24-70L or 24-105L).

Once owning the TS-E 17L, I would then sell the 17-40L, because you won't use it anymore, and possibly buy a 24L II or a TS-E 24L II in addition .

Since you own both 50 F/1.4 and 50 F/1.8, I would sell the latter too, as well as the 55-250, as you already own the 70-200L, unless the you own the 55-250 specifically for traveling light.

As to IQ of 16-35L vs 35L - not even close. Yes, the 16-35L II is a very good lens, but the prime is way better. If you want to buy the 16-35L II or 17-40L just to use it mainly at 35 mm, I would seriously suggest to get the 35L instead, or if you find you are more often at 24 mm (check your shots with 24-70 and 24-105), the 24L II.

Kind regards, Wim

The 16-35mm is simply awesome, have a read of the digital picture review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
But....I use it almost exclusively at 16mm. If money was not an issue, I would have the 14mm MK II as well as the 16-35mm. I am still pondering about selling the 16-35mm and buying a 14 MK II but the 16-35mm is just so awesome. The 17-40mm doesn't even get a look in....for me and what I shoot.

^^ Thanks Wim ... I needed someone to remind me that I am carrying all this gear for no reason. Let me put it this way; I have separated these items for sale, I just haven't put up the ads yet 55-250, 28-135, 24-105L, and 50/1.8

For my interests (landscape, and family, in that order) I think 17-40 OR 16-35LII, 24-70L, 50/1.4, & 85/1.8, 70-200 is a good bag for me

I have started leaning towards the 17-40 a little more ...

* Never even considered a TS-E because I always regarded them as speciality lenses ... looked up a few pics and saw some nice landscape results! Maybe I should look into them ..

get the 17-40L. if you discover that you want/need the extra stop get the 16-35L II. i've owned both, and i much prefer the 16-35L II.

How can money be no object, but at the same time it has to be less that $1350?

ed rader wrote in post #15144394
get the 17-40L. if you discover that you want/need the extra stop get the 16-35L II. i've owned both, and i much prefer the 16-35L II.

Hey Ed do you think the 16-35LII @ 24mm onwards is good enough for occasional portrait as an alternative to the 24LII?

I want 14-70 + 24LII, but am looking to save a bit and do it all with 16-35II alone...

ed rader wrote in post #15144394
get the 17-40L. if you discover that you want/need the extra stop get the 16-35L II. i've owned both, and i much prefer the 16-35L II.

+1

rklepper wrote in post #15144406
How can money be no object, but at the same time it has to be less that $1350?

Rephrase #2: If I had between $1 and $1350 to spend on a wide lens to use for landscaping on a FF Canon EOS DSLR .....

Hi Alex,

alphamalex wrote in post #15144356
^^ Thanks Wim ... I needed someone to remind me that I am carrying all this gear for no reason. Let me put it this way; I have separated these items for sale, I just haven't put up the ads yet 55-250, 28-135, 24-105L, and 50/1.8

For my interests (landscape, and family, in that order) I think 17-40 OR 16-35LII, 24-70L, 50/1.4, & 85/1.8, 70-200 is a good bag for me

I have started leaning towards the 17-40 a little more ...

* Never even considered a TS-E because I always regarded them as speciality lenses ... looked up a few pics and saw some nice landscape results! Maybe I should look into them ..

In that case the question really is what you'd would use the 17-40L/16-35L II for. If you are really looking for the convenience of a zoom, by all means, get either one, and get the 17-40L if you want to shoot landscapes (at F/8 and up they equal each other), and the 16-35L II if you also want to do a lot of portraits (environmental) etc. with it, especially for its F/2.8 possibility.

However, if you really want to shoot landscapes more than anything else with it, especially if the 24-70L is just fine for your wider people shots, I'd highly recommend the TS-E 17L. I sold my 17-40L after getting the TS-E 17; it just didn't get any use at all anymore. The difference is night and day. The TS-E 17 is sharp from corner to corner, neither of the zoom lenses are (my compositions ask for sharpness into the corners most of the time). The level of detail even in the background is way higher than that of any of these 2 zoom lenses. The rendering of the TS-E is a lot better too, IMO, and the bokeh of all TS-Es, including that of the 17, is absolutely stunning, at any aperture amazingly enough.

As to the 16-35L II: it is slightly better than the 17-40L, but its main advantage is the extra f-stop; at 24 mm the 17-40L beats it, and at about F/8 they are equal, as mentioned.

MF with the TS-E 17 is very easy - focus on the element in the frame that is most important, that which draws the eye in in the composition, and shoot.
The TS-Es are specialty lenses, but they can be used as normal lenses too, just that they are MF . Fortunately, aperture is automatic, unlike the Rokinon.
For specialist use, like architecture with shift, or tilting the plane for artistic or other effect, LiveView helps tremendously, although I tend to do this handheld most of the time anyway . Tilt is also useful for landscapes of course, and shift too, for stitching, which is very easy to do on a tripod.

I think the only lens that may be sharper than the TS-E 17L is the TS-E 24L II, but to be very honest, I don't think that the difference will be visible in 60 cm X 90 cm (2 ft X 3 ft) prints.

Kind regards, Wim