cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Which is the better zoom lens?

birbajans94
Apprentice

So recently upgraded to a full frame camera, now I’m looking to add some glassware. I’ve been looking at the 17-40mm as well as the 16-35mm. My main question is what’s the major difference(if any)? As well which would you recommend for all around shooting?

10 REPLIES 10

kvbarkley
VIP
VIP

Which 16-35?

What lenses do you have now? Both the 17-40 and 16-35  are not really considered all around, general use, lenses. They are ultra wide angle lenses

 

For general use, most people go with a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom lens. 

Mike Sowsun


@MikeSowsun wrote:

What lenses do you have now? Both the 17-40 and 16-35  are not really considered all around, general use, lenses. They are ultra wide angle lenses

 

For general use, most people go with a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom lens. 


Mike is correct.

 

If you are coming from a crop sensor camera it probably came with an 18-55 kit lens.

 

Remember that the crop sensor alters the field of view; an 18mm lens on a crop sensor camera ias equivalent to an almost 30mm lens on a full frame camera. Thus the 24-70/105 lens recommendation.

 

If you really want the 16/17mm coverage on the full frame body the 16-35mm f/4 is an outstanding lens.

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, M200, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, Lr Classic

I have the 16-35 F4 L and have no complaints. I use it for landscape and Milky Way photos. The photos are clean & sharp with vibrant colours. I can't speak on the F2.8 as I have never used it.

"I have the 16-35 F4 L and have no complaints."

 

I have the f2.8L not the f4 which I have never used. I admit I have just a single copy of the lens.  I have a couple friends that are not happy with theirs so I believe it is not a single case. I do have one friend that is totally happy with hers.  However, I sell photos and can not sell what my 16-35mil produces.

Canon makes the best lenses in the world. I only go for off brand for two reasons.  One Canon doesn't see fit to make the lens I want. Example the 150-600mm super zoom. And, two, the 16-35mm.  Some could throw the nominally high cost of most of Canon products as a good reason, too.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

There are three versions of the 16-35mm f/2.8.

 

The "III" version is reported to be significantly better than the previous two.

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, M200, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, Lr Classic

"The "III" version is reported to be significantly better than the previous two."

 

I certainly hope so. I have the II version. I replaced it with the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens.  I am not a Tokina lens fan but this lens is fantastic. It is my only Tokina and likely will be my only Tok.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend
I call that a toss up. Nearly the same, you can get f2.8 with the 16-35mil. I have not checked recently but the 17-40mm is probably cheaper. It may not even be produced any more. There are guys here that check that stuff daily so somebody will know.
EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend
Personally I wish I had my 17-40mil back. My 16-35mm f2.8L is the only Canon lens I have that was a disappointment.
EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Avatar
click here to view the gallery
Announcements