I'm looking to add a lens to my bag on the wider end of the spectrum. I'm shooting a 1D MkIII. I shoot a variety of genres including portraits, landscapes and sports, though this lens would probably not be used for sports or in a very limited capacity. I've been looking at the 16-35 vII or the 17-40.
What are your thoughts? Is there another lens I should be considering? I'd like to keep cost down under $1500.
From what I've seen, the Tokina 16-28 looks better than either Canon lens. With your 1.3X crop you could also consider the Sigma 12-24 which would give you a true ultra wide. I had the 17-40 and it was a good lens for landscapes -- okay for general purpose since the center of the frame was generally sharp wide open. I think the 16-35 II is probably better, but it depends on what its used for.
Paul
HawksFan66 wrote:
I'm looking to add a lens to my bag on the wider end of the spectrum. I'm shooting a 1D MkIII. I shoot a variety of genres including portraits, landscapes and sports, though this lens would probably not be used for sports or in a very limited capacity. I've been looking at the 16-35 vII or the 17-40.
What are your thoughts? Is there another lens I should be considering? I'd like to keep cost down under $1500.
The 17-40 is not that great, except for "L build" and price.
I don't see how you could fit the 16-35 Mark II in your budget.
I faced a similar dilemma and after research I got a lens that is almost as sharp as the 16-35 and Nikon 14-24, a lot sharper than the 17-40 (faster too), and has less barrel distortion than all three. The price, around $1k, fits your budget too. I'm thrilled with mine. Oh, by the way, it's the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8.
HawksFan66 wrote:
I have the 50 f/2.5, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 macro, and 70-200 f/2.8 vII.
I have a similar set including a 50, the 85, the 100 macro, and an L tele-zoom (100-400). The Tokina plays with the set nicely and it all fits in the bag.
Monito wrote:
The 17-40 is not that great, except for "L build" and price.
This is nonsense. The 17-40 is a fantastic lens to have - my copy is very sharp also at the corners. I see no need to go for the 16-35 instead only if you really need the one stop faster. But I never wished I had a faster stop than f/4 with this kind of lens. Also consider that the 16-35 has drawbacks compared to the 17-40 - for example I couldn't make any use of the 16-35 since it is known to give hot spots in the infrared photography while the 17-40 doesn't. The other disadvantage of the 16-35 for many is the larger filter size thread of 82 mm.
