Which combo would best serve me?

Hello All!
I am going to add a new 5DII to my kit (and yes, I am very happy about that!) and now I need to know which lens will best meet my needs. Or at least if there is a noticeable difference between the two.
I am getting into landscapes big-time, and I am looking at the 17-40 and the 16-35. Is the image quality obviously different between these two when shooting landscapes? Does the 16-35 perform that much better on full-frame than the 17-40?

Thanks in advance for your help!

I have both and I can't tell the difference between the two when in larger apertures, e.g. f/8 and up. I think the corners are a little better with the 17-40 but they are both pretty close. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=5

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Differences... besides that one is a 16-35 and the other is a 17-40? Or that one is a constant f2.8 and the other is a constant f4? Or is it one uses a 82mm filter and the other uses a 77mm?

I don't think there is a big difference in sharpness. But one does go to f2.8... =P

Everything I read says that the 17-40 and 16-35 perform on par. I'd go with the 17-40 if it were my money

I found the following comparison very useful in making my choice between the two lenses you mention:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Not sure if I have posted the link correctly?

Thanks for the help!
I think I am going with the 17-40 for now...

I too have had both and couldnt tell a difference. I did however find some reviews online where they put them up against each other and did a very in depth comparison. When looked extremely closely the 16-35 is a tiny, tiny bit better on the corners. But again this is only when looked at 100% and really examined.

For the money i would choose the 17-40 hands down. Especially with the 5D-2 handling high ISO so well theres no problems shooting indoors. I just really wanted the 2.8 and it cost me double.