16-35 f4 or 17-40 f4

[billboman99]

I can get a mint 17-40 for $300. Is a new 16-35 worth the difference at $1100 ?
Have 24-70 2.8 as well.

[cicopo]

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.

[Peter]

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.

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[billboman99]

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.