Opinions - Canon 16-35mm vs 17-35mm f2.8L

[EK9Hatch]

Hey, I was wondering what your guys opinions are between the older Canon 17-35mm f2.8L and the newer 16-35mm f2.8L lenses are?

I heard that the newer 16-35 is a more sharp lens. But really just how noticeable is it?

I guess what I'm getting at is, if you came across a good deal on the 17-35 would you buy it? Or would you just keep saving to go with the 16-35?

Any help or comments would be great. Thanks

Jamie

[C4S]

Well.. to be honest, you are not going to see much diff ....

Yes .. you will find the 16-35mm a bit sharper .. however, do u need very sharp picture all the time?

the 17-40L is actually even sharper!

For colour, bokeh, distortion, 17-35 is still a great lens, you will love the F2.8, and it is great to shoot at F2.8! fast in focus, and good for low light!

For sure the 16-35mm is slight better, same as the 16-35II is better then the 16-35mm I, just very small diff!

It depends what kind of pictures you like to do, if you do a lots of landscape, then the 16-35 may be better, or if you do wedding, then 17-35 is good enough! ^_^

I had 20-35 then 17-40 (sold), and now 17-35 and 16-35. They are all great lens, if you are looking for a used one, I will say the condition of the lens is more important.

[483hp]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/16-35.shtml

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Have you considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Quite a bit cheaper than the 16-35, good value unless you're using a 5D or 1D/s.

[EK9Hatch]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Have you considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Quite a bit cheaper than the 16-35, good value unless you're using a 5D or 1D/s.

I really want a L series lens.


483hp - Thanks for the link!

Jamie

[C4S]

The 17-55 .. structure wise .. close to "L" lens .. but without the "red ring" ....

And yes .. if you are using 1.6x .. the 17-55 can give you really good result, cheaper, more zoom range, plus IS.