Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

16-35 f4 or 17-40 f4

Occasional Contributor
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.

Esteemed Contributor

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.

"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

Respected Contributor

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.

Forum Elite

"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" Smiley Happy difference!

Keep in mind most people that do see differences are looking for them. Most people don't look for them.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

Occasional Contributor

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.