17-40 for daily use?

I moved to lighter gear a few years ago. My primary digital camera is now an 80D. The 18-135mm USM covers a huge range of possibilities. My choice for wider when I need it is the Tokina 12-28 f/4. I have no complaints about either lens. I recently acquired a 650D/24 STM combination that is primarily a light meter, and EXIF recorder, for my meterless film cameras. It makes a pretty small carry-package, too!

Vendee wrote in post #19023429
When I want to go lightweight and compact on my 6D I use my EF40 f2.8 STM pancake. I know its not as wide as you want but it sure is small and light and the image quality is good.

great suggestion. he probably didn't need 17-39mm anyway

I can't compare the 2 lenses you've mentioned, but I own the 17-40 and have never once been unhappy regarding it's performance.

That being said, if you're trying to go lighter, I don't think this lens is going to make you any happier. Prime users wish for range, zoom users wish for speed. I chose prime long ago and while I do miss shots because of limited range, I also LOVE the shots I do get because I have the speed.

There's always a compromise, always. I'm not in love with the cell phone idea, but it's roughly equivalent to 28mm ... so maybe carry a 50mm prime and just remember that you have your phone if you get into a jam. Again, I don't love that advice as I almost never use my phone to take photos ... unless I absolutely have to.

My loosely followed rule is 35mm inside and 50mm outside.

Update:

I ended up going with a 35mm F2.0 USM IS for my 6dmk2. I know it's not the perfect option, but within my current circumstances and budget it's the best option for me. Imo, it's the best compromise between focal length, speed and IQ for me. I will have to work around its limitations, and I'm sure I'll complain constantly.

Congratulations! You will love that lens. The 35mm f/2 IS was my favorite prime when I was using a 6D. The only lens I had that was better was the Σ24A, but it didn't get as much use.

I've owned that lens as well. You won't be disappointed. Great choice.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hey​n1F

snegron wrote in post #19023821
Update:

I ended up going with a 35mm F2.0 USM IS for my 6dmk2. I know it's not the perfect option, but within my current circumstances and budget it's the best option for me. Imo, it's the best compromise between focal length, speed and IQ for me. I will have to work around its limitations, and I'm sure I'll complain constantly.

Ok, so my 35mm f/2 IS USM arrived today. Took a few test shots, and it appears to be sharp. I found that f4.0 (under ISO 800) seems to be the sweet spot when used with my 6dmk2. Hopefully it will last on my 6dmk2. Contemplating the idea of getting the Canon Carepak 4 year warranty for it to match the one I got for my 6dmk2. It would provide some peace of mind since this will be a beater lens on my beater camera.

My "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome doesn't allow me to keep lenses that long, lol. I'm always swapping out my gear only to wish I had it back.

snegron wrote in post #19024381
Contemplating the idea of getting the Canon Carepak 4 year warranty for it to match the one I got for my 6dmk2.

snegron wrote in post #19023821
Update:

I ended up going with a 35mm F2.0 USM IS for my 6dmk2. I know it's not the perfect option, but within my current circumstances and budget it's the best option for me. Imo, it's the best compromise between focal length, speed and IQ for me. I will have to work around its limitations, and I'm sure I'll complain constantly.

I picked up a RF 35mm f/1.8 lens for the EOS R I bought during the holiday sales. The weight and size of the combo is great, and the focal length works better than I thought as a "walk around". Yes, there are some focal length limitations, but depending on your subject matter those may be able to be worked around. If you are shooting the actual rides at theme parks, though, you will miss the ultra wide angle -- you will not have enough room to "zoom with your feet".

I've owned both lenses and I don't think there is much difference in the size or weight between the two. The 16-35 f4 IS is the superior lens and I don't think there is much advantage to owning both. For smaller and lighter I like my 28 2.8 IS prime.. I know it isn't a zoom but there is also a 24mm and 35mm f2 in this series. They are sharp and can be handheld a very low shutter speeds.

If you care about spending less, then the 17-40 is a great lens. "vastly superior" is very subjective. The only reason I would like the 16-35 in your case is the IS, which is the big difference if you walk around with it. Otherwise, image quality, edge sharpness etc is not something a person using a lens for travel and taking pics at theme parks should be overly concerned about. The subject is your focus. Save your money and get more lenses.