Difference between 16-35 and 17-40

Martcol ... you don't need to have any lenses to become a 'Top Contributor' here. Just look at me!

Now, as you're also in that category, I suggest you read up on the basics ... try that thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=27022

And, above all, have fun

Best regards,
Andy

I shoot it mostly outdoor, but won't need the 70-200 f/4 to go with it, as I already got a 70-200 2.8. But a 550EX and a monopod might follow instead Still haven't decided on them yet though, and still have some time before next paycheck will be in.

We will surely help you spend it!

The consensus seems to be that the 17-40mm looses NOTHING in quality vs> the 16-35mm... many feel it does better. I personally find that my 17-40mm does everything that the 16-35mm does.. except open up to f/2.8

Couldn't agree with you more CDS. All the research I read showed the 17-40 was pretty much on equal par with the 16-35 except for price and f2.8. Once I got the lens it was proved true. Very, very nice lens.