Canon 17-40 f4 L vs Canon 16-35 f4 L IS

Started Feb 15, 2017 | Questions thread
Morvegil
Morvegil Regular Member • Posts: 401
Re: What about 16-35/f2.8 III?

pekr wrote:

We are waiting for the 6D2 to enter a FF land. Recently we've got 70-200/f2.8 II IS and Sigma Art 35 1.4 as compatible lens, whereas nice Tamron 17-50/f2.8 remains for our APS-C purposes (nicely sharp one).

Thanks to this thread, we don't need to consider 17-40, the lens I remember from the past.

One of questions we have to answer ourselves is - do we prefer wider lens (weddings preparations, indoors), or a longer reach and companion to our 70-200, hence e.g. 24-70/f2.8?

On the other hand - both 16-35/f.2.8 III and 24-70/f2.8 II are almost twice the price and while faster, don't have IS (not sure it is needed on 2.8 though).

So after all, we might go 16-35/f4 IS way, as a bit of an extra reach in comparison to 24mm might be handy indoors?

Thanks,

Petr

If its lower light and action it wont be enough.

 Morvegil's gear list:Morvegil's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM Art
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow