16-35L vs 17-40L

OutCast

I know the technical specs of the lens and of course the price points are different...

Is it worth going to the 16-35 for THAT much money? Help me justify the cost, or save me some cash.

I apprecaite your feedback

ziggy53

OutCast wrote:

I know the technical specs of the lens and of course the price points are different...

Is it worth going to the 16-35 for THAT much money? Help me justify the cost, or save me some cash.

I apprecaite your feedback

OC, welcome to the Digital Grin.

If you need the f2.8, the Canon EF 16-35mm, f/2.8L II USM (or the original version) is still a great lens for full frame use. If you can live with f4, the Canon EF 17-40mm, f/4L USM is very similar quality wide open to the EF 16-35mm, f/2.8L at f4.

I wound up getting the EF 17-40mm, f/4L USM to use with my 1D MKII and I am very happy with that combination.

OutCast

I'm shooting on a crop body (40D) at the moment but i don't want to invest in EF-s glass. I'll move to full frame one day and good lens will out live a body everytime. This does of course mean at the wide end I don't have any real options.

ziggy53

I just got the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and I highly recommend it for anyone with a crop 1.6x Canon camera. If ever there was an almost perfect match of camera and lens for general photography and especially for event photography, this is it.

This lens is as good as it gets.