07-20-2021 10:13 PM
07-20-2021 11:53 PM
I can't answer that but I've owned both, used them on a few different bodies & prefer & kept the 16-36 F 4 L IS in particular for it's better images edge to edge. Way back when I started the change to digital from film I had a 20D and bought the 17-40 and I also bought the first version (and an early 1 at that) of the Sigma 18-200 & frankly the Sigma was so close in the range they both covered that I couldn't tell which I used & nor could others most of the time.
07-21-2021 01:32 AM - edited 07-21-2021 01:36 AM
Owned both. Kept 16-35/4L IS. Never liked the soft corners from 17-40. Look for a used 16-35 if you think a new one is too expensive. $841 for one in my area with around 300 pictures taken.
07-21-2021 10:03 AM
"16-35 worth the difference at $1100 ?"
No, it is not. In real use I doubt you can tell or see any big difference. Let alone a "grand" difference!
Keep in mind most people that do see differences are looking for them. Most people don't look for them.
07-27-2021 11:53 AM
Thanks for your input. I rented the 16-35 for a few days and came to the realization that I would not use as much as I had
Think I will stick with 24-70 until I travel enough to make it worthwhileto have a dedicated landscape lens.
03/02/2023: New Firmware Updates Are Available:EOS R7 - Version 1.3.0EOS R10 - Version 1.3.0
2/07/2023: New product announcements!EOS R8 EOS R50RF-S55-210mm F5-7.1 IS STMRF24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STMRF15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM
Canon U.S.A Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited.