17-40 & 20-35 -vs- 16-35 mkI

Which would you choose?

Here's my situation. I prefer to consider myself a landscape and travel shooter. For this reason I LOVE the f/4 zooms because they're smaller, lighter and less expensive with similar performance to the 2.8 versions. All great things when traveling.

But my wife and I have our first rug rat running around at home. Traditionally I've been shooting him with primes (mostly my 24L) for the extra speed. I also love the compact feel of the 24L on the 5D. But I've been tempted by the convenience of a 2.8 zoom, so I recently picked up a 20-35mm to basically test the waters at the FLs I prefer.

Now that I have this lens I'm really liking it. the range is perfect inside for me and when I go shoot landscapes I take the other lens. But here's my question, would you take the PAIR of the 20-35 AND 17-40, or "upgrade" to a 16-35 mkI as the 2 options cost about the same?

And I DO NOT WANT the 16-35II. I've had it before and I didn't like it. Too big, too heavy, too expensive, and no improvement over the 17-40. The other huge issue I have is with the hoods. They're all terrible, but with the 17-40 I have a chopped 24-105 hood which I could tweak to work with the 16-35.

The idea of a consolidated kit are nice, but on the other hand the other 2 options are both smaller and lighter when I'd use them (I'd never have both with me) and it also gives me a spare lens (my wife's been using an XSi)....

poll coming.

If you're happy with the 17-40 and 20-35 I would stick with them, especially since you didn't like the 16-35 MK II.

I would rather just have the 17-40 on its own than the MK1

Unless you need the extra resolving power of the 16-35 II I would not waste that much money.

I think it's possible to get a nice 16-35 MKI, especially if you're not a Professional Pixel Peeper™.

bought a EX+ mark I this week. It's corners are soft wide open, but sharpen nicely at f/8~f/11. Those are the apertures where I'll start to care anyway, so I'm giving it a try... I love the size though. It's longer than the 17-40 by like a lens cap...

i have a hard time picking two lenses over one...but as the owner of the 16-35L II i guess i don't need to .

ed rader

wow, you own a $1400 lens, thanks for coming in and bragging about it ed.

(owned it, didn't like it, sold it for the 17-40 again)

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7557311
wow, you own a $1400 lens, thanks for coming in and bragging about it ed.

(owned it, didn't like it, sold it for the 17-40 again)

you own more in lenses than i do if my extravagance bothers you .

it just seems that both alternatives aren't as good as the 16-35L II, with the two lens option being the least attractive .

i'd say get either the 17-40L or 16-35L II but i actually voted for the 16-35L because i couldn't see getting two lenses to do the job of one.

ed rader

the hood and the 82mm filters ruin the 16-35II for me (between my CP and 10 stop ND, one's $360 (vs $260 in 77) and the other isn't available. Had it been available I might have sucked it up and gone for it, but nope. The hood also annoys the hell out of me and has on all versions of my canon UWA lenses (10-22 [haven't owned that one], 17-40, 16-35 all share the same one, the 16-35II steps it up to an even worse design). Because the 17-40 and 16-35mm share the same hood mount they can both use modified 24-105 hoods which I already own and already have modded (needs another MM removed for 16mm though).

If the 16-35II had been done with the 77mm front and the old hood I'd have been done with this over a year ago.

The 17-40 is an excellent lens-- and really shines on the 5D --- the 16-35 is just better for my work, weddings, in low light.
I HATE the hood! It is annoying!