16-35 f4 or 17-40 f4

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-20-2021 10:13 PM
Have 24-70 2.8 as well.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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.
EOS 1D, EOS 1D MK IIn, EOS 1D MK III, EOS 1Ds MK III, EOS 1D MK IV and EOS 1DX and many lenses.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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
envisioned.
Think I will stick with 24-70 until I travel enough to make it worthwhileto have a dedicated landscape lens.
