EF 16 35 mm f/2.8 L VS EF 17 40 mm f/4 L

Hello,

I would like to buy one of those lens. Why 16 35mm twice the price of 17 40 mm?

thanks for help

because it is f2.8.... buy 17-40 unless you want to show off or you won the lottery. I've got one and I am happy with it.

f/2.8 on the 16-35mm vs f/4.0 on the 17-40mm
@ the largest aperture, the 16-35mm allows in 2 times more light than the 17-40mm at its largest aperture.

thanks, any other advantage on 16-35mm?

limestone wrote in post #2130043
thanks, any other advantage on 16-35mm?

Well, it's wider. Faster is better !

so, you, dudes, are using wide angle lens at f2.8...... Cool....

I do.

IMAGE LINK: http://img155.imagesha​ck.us …5/4751/img2070g​enanu4.jpg

Unless you need the 2.8, go with the 17-40. I've got one and it is great.

an f2.8 vs an f4 will allow twice as much light to come in, resulting in a much brighter viewfinder at all times. In dim lighting, you can double the shutter speed by shooting at f2.8 vs f4. For wide angles going from 1/10 sec to 1/20 sec at 16mm may mean the difference between a sharp shot or a blurred shot. F2.8 also allows some camera to focus faster as well. Lastly, if you take the old rule of thumb that a lens is sharpest 2 stops down from max, the 16-35 will be sharpest at about f5.6 while the 17-40 will be shapest at about f8, which may be too slow for some, especially if you want a good bokeh.

Oh, generally wider/longer and faster lenses cost more due to the engineering and due to marketing.

kufel wrote in post #2130090
so, you, dudes, are using wide angle lens at f2.8...... Cool....

not me. i've got the 17-40 and i use it mostly from f8 - f11 except once when there was a lacka light i was forced to jack up the iso to 400 and open up the light hole to f5.6 .

ed rader

p.s. it's my landscape lens.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

grego wrote in post #2130137
I do.

IMAGE LINK: http://img155.imagesha​ck.us …5/4751/img2070g​enanu4.jpg

you could have used your 24-70L for this picture of the lovely lass, eh ?

ed rader

i have had my 17-40 for a while now and it is producing amazing shots OR i am getting better , i would love the 16-35 for indoor work but for now the 17-40 is fine thats really the only thing i find the 16-35 has over the 17-40.

If you need to ask why the 16-35 is twice the $, you don't need it !!

I am delighted with my 17-40, and have no regrets. It's my outdoor walk-about, and I have never flet the need for f/2.8 yet - as Ed said, it mostly gets used f/8 or so

ed rader wrote in post #2130231
you could have used your 24-70L for this picture of the lovely lass, eh ?

I don't know, but the last time I checked, the 24-70L didn't do 17mm

To OP: I'm with steved110 on this one: If you have to ask...

ed rader wrote in post #2130231
you could have used your 24-70L for this picture of the lovely lass, eh ?

ed rader

On my 30D, which i used it on, at 24mm, it has the FOV of 38.4mm. I shot it at 17mm(FOV of 27.2), so hard to go backwards. And on my 1DMKII, i get about 21mm at the widest end.

I don't own the 24-70. The 16-35 is more valuable to me than the 24-70.

So i have my
16-35, 70-200, and that'll cover just about any assignments I need. Of course I would love to buy the 24-70 range, but have to budget myself, and I know where the more important glass for me was.