DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

17-40mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L

Started Dec 26, 2012 | Questions thread
Dave Throgmartin
Dave Throgmartin Contributing Member • Posts: 878
Re: 17-40mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L

arty H wrote:

I recommend considering the Canon 24-105L. My copy has looked sharper, with better contrast, than the 17-40 I just got. The range is excellent. If you want a wider lens, then the 17-40L will give you that. Both of these lenses are under your price limit. I see a bigger improvement over the 18-55IS with the 24-105L than with the 17-40L.

The only reason for getting the 16-35 would be for the F2.8.

If you will never go full-frame, then you might consider the 17-55IS. It is a fine lens and has F2.8. I use a 60D, but plan to get a full-frame camera soon. If I didn't want to go this route, I'd probably be interested in the 17-55IS. I like the range of the 15-85IS, but not the F5.6 at the long end.

I should point out that you see more for your money when you get a good fast prime. I have the 35F2, and it gets used a lot. If I didn't have the older version (now $290), I'd be in the market for the new 35F2 IS.

The 24-105L is no doubt a fine lens, but 24mm can be fairly limiting on a crop sensor in some scenarios like landscape work.

Maybe 24-105L and 18-55 could coexist well?  It could lead to a lot of lens changes in the field though.

Dave

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow