17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

[Glenn]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

Cheaper or Dearer - Cheaper wins again.
I wouldn't waste my money on anything but the fastest in the range.

While that might be the case for someone like yourself, Colin or me. Some people can't justify the extra expense if they're not earning from their gear.

Me, I'm just stupid and have money to burn.....

[Malam]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

Cheaper or Dearer - Cheaper wins again.
I wouldn't waste my money on anything but the fastest in the range.
The 16-35 can AF where the 17-40 hunts - that's one of the main reasons it's double the price -
Not because Canon thought they'd produce a bargain WA lens to give everyone on a budget decent value for money.

Millie

Its not a waste of money at all. I find that I would not use the UWA that much - my 24-70mm f2.8 stays on the 5D most of the time. I agree with you that the double price is not just a marketing ploy, the 16-35mm f2.8 is superior.

[briansquibb]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

Superor or just faster?

[colin C]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

In my tests both, but not by enough margin to make me want to change. In fairness though, I don't use a wide angle very much and I know that if I did use it regularly, I would have changed to the 16 - 35mm f2.8 MKII.

Colin

[Malam]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

In my tests both, but not by enough margin to make me want to change. In fairness though, I don't use a wide angle very much and I know that if I did use it regularly, I would have changed to the 16 - 35mm f2.8 MKII.

Colin

I did try the 16-35mm f2.8 over a weekend and really liked it, but again, the price was the breaker. The price difference gave me the breathing room to fund the purchase of the 70-200mm f2.8 MK II which I am enjoying very much.

[MX5]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

Might wait until September to see what the shows bring ... Canon has been a tad quiet on lenses of late (if you follow rumours there's one one about a 16-50 f4 with Hybrid-IS ... for the EOS 3D ... ;-) ;-) ;-)). But looking like (for weight reasons) I'd plump for the 17-40 at the moment.

[Mark]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

Now I don't have either, but looking at the 17-40 now I've moved to a 1D

To me it's an easy decision.

Would I really notice 1mm on the wide end for the shots I take : No
On a wide angle do I need f/2.8 over f/4 : No
Could I find something better to spend the £560 in price difference : Hell Yes

[briansquibb]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

You could almost get a 200 f2.8 for the difference :)

[Millie]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

You could almost get a 200 f2.8 for the difference :)

This is turning into those conversations like:
I remember the days when thou couldst go downt shop whey fifty quid, buy a fast lens, and still have enough money left to buy bread 'n' dripping ont way 'ome. :-)))))

Millie

[briansquibb]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

I am older than that :)

[colin C]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

He is Millie.

Brian (Methusellah) Squibb.

Colin

[Millie]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

OMG... I've just Googled "Bread and dripping" - it's real heart attack food.:-)

Millie

[Glenn]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

OMG... I've just Googled "Bread and dripping" - it's real heart attack food.:-)

Millie

I, but there's nowt better

[Millie]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

I, but there's nowt better

Nowt better for furred arteries Glenn :-) - Yes, get the 16-35 !

Millie

[briansquibb]

Re: 17-40mm or 16-35mm on a 5D ?

This thread is a bit like the one on the 24-105

I guess the best way to resolve it is to sit down and list your requirements and also features you dont need

When I chose my list was short:

I need it to be portable as I carry it when walking
I dont need it for low light (I use flash) or sports (too short)
I wont use it much so low price is needed for VFM.

After that it was an easy choice - I even got it second hand which saved nearly £200 over the best new price