If money was no object ..

Get the 17-40 if you don't need 2.8 and shoot a lot of landscape at f8. It is one of the cheapest L Len with very good quality , both build and IQ

Asroma wrote in post #15155798
Get the 17-40 if you don't need 2.8 and shoot a lot of landscape at f8. It is one of the cheapest L Lens with very good quality , both build and IQ

Money was no object...?

Asroma wrote in post #15155798
Get the 17-40 if you don't need 2.8 and shoot a lot of landscape at f8. It is one of the cheapest L Len with very good quality , both build and IQ

Yes, this is pretty much what I want it for. I shot the Daniel Boone National Forest this past weekend with my 24-70 and I was dying for a 16 or 17. I think at this point I am just ready to set it to manual, pre-set the distance, just compose and shoot ... I have yet to come across any scenes that needed special artistry with shallow DOF. the difference between 16 and 17 is negligible, isn't it? As I said, never used either one before.

I think you all are leading me towards trying the cheaper 17-40 and work it; if I need 16-35/2.8, I'll upgrade. I'm glad I asked

In your situation I would recommend that you at least try the 14mm L. It sounds a bit extreme but once you get the feel of WA you will appreciate what the 14 mm has to offer. You have the 24-70 so you have the wide walk around bit covered pretty well. The 14 would be a great landscape, architectural, garden compliment and you will probably hardly ever miss the gap and you WILL fall in love with the 14 mm.

I see a lot of your lenses share a 77mm filter thread, thats another reason to go with the 17-40L, no need to get new filters for the 16-35. BUT if you need the extra stop or want 1mm wider, why not 16-35. I plan on getting the 17-40L one day

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15156461
I see a lot of your lenses share a 77mm filter thread, thats another reason to go with the 17-40L, no need to get new filters for the 16-35. BUT if you need the extra stop or want 1mm wider, why not 16-35. I plan on getting the 17-40L one day

+1 ... That definitely is another consideration that I have taken into account ..

alphamalex wrote in post #15156367
the difference between 16 and 17 is negligible, isn't it? As I said, never used either one before.

The difference is minute.

16-35L II @ 16mm

I really thought the 1mm. was more than this. Especially on the wide side. But maybe the 16mm. is 16.45 when you measure it and the 17 mm. could be 16.98 or something.

Focal lenghts are just numbers. That's why the old 24-70 is more zoomed at 70mm than the new 24-70 at 70mm.

Bonbridge wrote in post #15157980
I really thought the 1mm. was more than this. Especially on the wide side. But maybe the 16mm. is 16.45 when you measure it and the 17 mm. could be 16.98 or something.

Focal lenghts are just numbers. That's why the old 24-70 is more zoomed at 70mm than the new 24-70 at 70mm.

I was surprised myself at how close the difference was.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15157195
The difference is minute.

Thank you lots for the examples; they are exactly what we needed

Bonbridge wrote in post #15157980
That's why the old 24-70 is more zoomed at 70mm than the new 24-70 at 70mm.

That's a very interesting statement, and here I thought 70 meant 70!

I find my 15 to 85 efs does a great job myself

16-35 is the modern workhorse, the 17-40 is the older but now regulated to "budget" workhorse

I had both here last Christmas - the 16-35 was on sale and I figured I'd try it. Kept the 17-40 after testing them.

Between the 16-35 and 17-40 when the intended use is landscapes, I'd pick the 17-40 every time. You will be hard pressed to find any difference between the two lenses at f8-f/11 at 20x30 and you arent going to use the f2.8 you're paying for on the 16-35. Plus, the 17-40 is a smaller/lighter lens to haul around when you're hiking.

But, once you try the ZE21 or either of the Canon TS-e's you'll be spoiled and a 17-40 will never quite cut it again. And, you can get a ZE21 for 1475-1525 used so it's not too far out of your budget.

MNUplander wrote in post #15159251
But, once you try the ZE21 or either of the Canon TS-e's you'll be spoiled and a 17-40 will never quite cut it again. And, you can get a ZE21 for 1475-1525 used so it's not too far out of your budget.

Man I'm gonna have to rent a TS-E and see what all the hoopla's about. This is sounding almost like the same kinda religious experience of using and seeing images from a 5Dc for the first time

I appreciate everyone else's opinions on this matter. The hyperfocal distance for a 5D2/17mm/F5.6 is 5.64', with acceptable sharpness at ~3', and gets better beyond 5.6 ... sounds good to me