14-40 or 20-35???

I now have a 17-40 F4 L and a 20-35 F2.8 L, both perform great. But I I I now have a 17-40 F4 L and a 20-35 F2.8 L, both perform great. But I don't need both.

17-40 covers a greater range, but sacrifices one stop over the 20-35, 17-40 focuses a bit closer too, which I appreciate. I'm leaning toward the 17-40, since new DSLRs have come so far with high ISO ratings that the extra stop isn't as important to me as it used to be.


I would rather lose one and gain a lens in a different range.

Any thoughts,maybe based on experience.

I'd lose the 20-35. The 17-40 is better in that range, and you don't need the extra stop, as you do indicate.

Kind regards, Wim

You seem to have a lot of lens overlap there. If It were me, and I was shooting 1.6x, I would sell the 17-40, the 20-35, the 35-105, 55-250 IS and maybe even the 28-200, and pick up a 10-22 for wide angle. That leaves you with: 10-22, 24-105, 100-400. If you need more speed, then Use the extra dough to buy a fast prime in your favorite length.

I've been thinking of doing just that for a while.

If you want the f2.8 aperture, you could consider selling both and getting a 16-35mm f2.8L, or even an older 17-35mm f2.8L if you don't mind looking at the used market.

Or, as tkbslc suggested, you could consider rejigging some of your lens lineup to something like the 10-22mm (or similar ultrawide, maybe even the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8) and maybe a fast standard walkaround zoom such as the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, or a 3rd party option such as the Sigma 18-50mm, Tamron 17-50mm or Tokina 16-50mm.

16-35 is attractive but I'm not willing to part with that kind of cash right now. As far as the 17-35, most reviews say that it is inferior to the 16-35 or 20-35 to some degree.


17-55 IS is on the plate, as it more than covers that range.